Gotta love when people skim a text, fill in the gaps between the words with their own assumptions, and then argue against those assumptions.
I mean, at least ask before you argue.
Yes, yes, there’s a reason for this complaint. No, the reason isn’t important. This just happens a lot.
Look, I’m not even suggesting I haven’t done so myself. I think everybody has.
I’m also not considering this “bad faith” argumentation.
It’s just so annoying to get out of, and takes so much energy.
So I made a comment comparing Fascism to Christianity. It wasn’t meant to be particularly inflammatory, but oh boy did it set people off.
I’m too lazy to look up which specific logical fallacy people fell prey to, also because that’s a rabbit hole I want to avoid. So let’s just… not give them any good names, yes?
First Fallacy
The first thing was for someone to misunderstand this comparison as making light of fascism, or even apologia for fascism.
See, I get why one might think so. But this take is deeply mired in an assumption, namely that one of the two is bad, and the other is good or neutral. If that were the case, then yes, the comparison would be shaky.
But either because this assumption is held true by the other party, or because the party wishes it to be true, they never bother to question it.
What if – here’s a thoughtI apologize for the cynicism, not the frustration behind it.
– what if I held both to be bad, akshumally?
One could, for example, look at the suffering and death both have caused and conclude they’re both causes of endless anguish.
What a notion! Suddenly the comparison isn’t so remote any longer, eh?
Second Fallacy
The second fallacy was – for someone else, no less – to assume that this comparison was based on historical analysis or religious science viewpoints, and reject it.
Like… I didn’t even have a chance to present the viewpoint I’m having here.
No.
The viewpoint is assumed, and on that assumption, arguments must be brought forth.
If I try to explain that’s not the viewpoint I’m sharing, evidence is brought up that I must have meant what I didn’t mean. It’s as if I don’t know my own mind better than some intarwebs rando.
What Viewpoint?
Honestly, that’s not the point.
I may write up in more detail what I was thinking about here, or I may not. The thing is, other people have made far more in-depth arguments on this topic than myself, so the best I could do would be to quote them and relate arguments from one to those of another.
But if I do so, it’s not going to be here.
Here, I’m just venting how much energy it eats when people jump into an argument with themselves, based ever so tentatively off words of another.
I don’t like being that other.