The Straw Man “Offence”

Citation preview

The Straw Man “Offence” Tolga Yalur

The Straw Man Argument is also known as the Stromand Fallacy. The description of the term is too bookish. It simply means that when you're in a debate and you say something, the debater would just take your word to the most extreme of, let's say, its field of meaning. For instance, you might support freedom of speech and expression of, let's say, this controversial cartoon, French cartoon, comics, Charlie Hebdo, even if you do not necessarily favor the cartoons themselves. The debater would take it to the most extreme and make it look as if you're the most blasphemous, most atheist and the most, the worst of the worst. And the world who has done even the worst and what the cartoons might express. Just an example, just an example, you do not need to have any idea about what those cartoons might have, might depict.

But your debater, well in this case the debater could be religious because the magazine expresses a lot of religious images and cartoons, religious criticizes and debunks and well satirizes these religious images. And the debater would just, if you support the freedom of expression of the cartoonist and the character of this comic, then the debater would take it to the most extreme. Well, another example would be you might be reading a book, maybe for the first time, and you might like to reference that in a debate and your debater would also take this book to the most extreme and then label you as the, I don't know, blasphemous or whatever. So these are some examples of straw man arguments, of course in politics and these differ. But the idea is this: There's a word that might have been used in an argument, in a debate, and the debater would take the word to the most extreme. You might even twist the meaning of the word. That would be the abstract description of the straw man argument, which is pretty prevalent and common in even everyday life. I bet the straw man argument or the straw man fallacy has nothing to do with the Wizard of Oz, the film where the straw man is very full, the only straw man who could speak, as far as I know, in the popular culture or in literature is the straw man and the visit of Oz.

And, well, the corporeal version of that idiotic, fully straw man would be the characters, Zardoz, and the film Zardoz, the name of the film Zardoz, indeed, it derives from the Wizard of Oz, the book, and the film as far as I remember, but the only straw character, I know of straw man characters, the straw man and the Wizard of Oz. And the Zardoz, that's more or less like a corporeal version, but in both filmic cases, these characters do not fit into the examples I've used in describing and comparing the idiots and fascists in terms of a debate, the context of debate. So, I'm not making the case that straw man argument, the term, derived from the film, Zardoz or the book.

The Fascist Idiots; the Idiot Fascists Let's say that in a debate, for example, one of the debaters used the word treaty. Treaty means something that a lot of the masses or if not the debaters and parties come to terms which make agree, agree up or treaty means something like that. But in terms of the straw man argument or straw man fallacy, the word, if the word treaty is used in the context of a debate, the straw man, our girl, would just take the meaning treaty in terms of threat or whatever. That would be a means of twisting or distorting or manipulating the meaning of the word into something that the word even doesn't mean. And these are some forms of straw man arguments, of course. And the debaters do not have to be from opposing groups of thoughts or beliefs or belief systems. Another example, let's say that you're in a bar having a drink and a nice sexy lady, you're a lot of course and a nice sexy lady comes and just sits next to you and you begin chatting and then then a bar and then just having drinks and drinks and chatting. Let's say that in terms of the ideological systems, you're an idiot and the lady is fascist. So well, there are a few sets of debates that might happen in that context of a bar to two people who have no idea about each other. They're just having drinks and they've just met and been chatting, and they're gonna debate and the man is an idiot and the woman is fascist. They might have a lot in common to share with each other, right? Because I mean, the two might intersect, there might be intersectionalities there in terms of identity, you know. Fascist is an identity and we have to respect fascists. And idiots are an identity and we have to respect their sensitivities. So fascists and idiots might have a lot in common to share and talk about maybe, maybe in some cases they might not have. So to just assess, make an assessment of this contextual encounter in a bar where there's a fascist and there's an idiot meeting, they don't have to be of the same sex or the opposite sex.

It's just let's say that debaters and one of the debaters is a fascist and one of the debaters is an idiot. And well, of course, not all fascists are idiots and not all idiots are fascists. So there might be some means of conflict as they continue drinking or chatting or debating and so on and so forth. And well, of course, idiots tend to take the words to the most extreme in a way as to just turn the meaning, not even upside down. I mean, this is not the meaning of the word, just the opposite, just like in the example of the word treaty, it doesn't mean threat. It means that all the dangers are gone. So you just come to make terms with it. But I mean, if there's an idiot who just distorts and manipulates the meaning of the word into something that the word doesn't even mean, then there might be a lot of problems. Well, let's say that the word treaty is used in the context of the board, where the debaters are idiots and fascists and they use the word treaty and that context. And one of the debaters used the word treaty doesn't matter who used to could be the fascist or the idiot. Well, there might indeed be a few indeed three different sensual or consensual outcomes in terms of the meaning in the context of a bar where the debaters are just debating. And the meaning outcomes would be threefold. One is the most preferable one is the fact that the treaty means the same thing for both debaters. Treaty treaty. Okay, so there's nothing to just fight about. It just means the word treaty. But for the idiot, treaty might mean threat or let's say that for the fascist, yeah, I mean, it tends to be more or less like a fascist making sense of things like the treaty might mean threats internal or external. And for the idiots, the treaty, the word treaty might mean might does not have to mean threats, but maybe just like some treats, you know, trick trick or trap or whatever, something sweet or something. Snacks. So yeah, I mean, these are three examples of the three sensual outcomes of the term treaty used in the context of a debate in a bar. And if both idiots and fascists agree on the meaning of the word treaty as it is, and the common sense, that means common sense, it means treaty. And then that's the domain of fascist idiocy or idiotic fascist. If the idiot’s meaning is not shared or confirmed by the fascist who thinks that it's a threat and the idiot thinks that it's treat. And then there's the risk of conflict. Yeah, that would be the right term to use. There's a risk of conflict there. Because the fascist thinks it's a threat, existential threat or whatever. And the idiot thinks that it's a treat. And they're not in the intersectional domain of meaning, which means that treaty, which means that, okay, we have got a rid of all the all are, let's say, prejudices or like bad feelings that we have been fed with all the religious ideological meanings around our existences or whatever. So we agree upon common sense. However, if the fascist is intimidated, even by the meaning of the treaty and conceives that as a threat, I mean, that's of course, that's that mindset. And the idiots because of the very, maybe

if the domain makes the idiot think of the treaty as a threat, not as a threat, but treat, then it's like a naivety or something like that. I mean, these are that the boundaries are not that blurry there. It's a treaty for both debaters. And if it's a threat by one and feet by the other debaters, so this is like not common sense or something like that. There's no need to just further the debate. You just accept the debater as whoever they are, idiot or fascist. But if they both debaters agree on the meaning as a treaty, then it is the domain of fascist idiocy with your fascism. Even when these groups of identities or groups of people fascist through idiots, they don't need to be from the oppositional backgrounds. So there might be some intersections for them to just make a meaningful conversation. And this example, that would be the domain of or the area of common sense or treaty. Well, in terms of the example, that was the word treaty. And well, of course, what does it all have to do with a strong man argument or a strong man debate or a strong man fallacy? Well, I mean, examples around the meaning of the term bird treaty is just treat or threat. Well, how the debater treats the meaning is a question there. Threat is more or less taking the word to the extreme. It's just irrational. Well, in both meanings of irrational in terms of common sense, because treaty is treaty. But yeah, I mean, when there is this this level of meaning where the sense is being disturbed, there is the risk, the potential of taking the meaning of whatever is said to the most extreme of it, which doesn't even need to be what the word means before giving this example of two debaters, one fascist and one idiot. I mean, to make that division before making that division, of course, one has to test if all fascist are idiots or all idiots of fascists before making that test. My 15, 16 minutes of episode would be just trash. First, one has to make the hypothesis to see if all the fascists are idiots or if all idiots are fascists. Well, common sense says that not all fascists are idiots and not all idiots are fascists, but there could be, especially after having heard of my example, there could be fascist idiots and idiot fascists who might come to terms with the meaning of a word like treaty. And they could make sense or agree on the meaning of the word treaty in not necessarily the context of a bar, but maybe I don't know, just the convention or whatever. So there could be the debaters agreeing on the meaning of the word treaty and making even a treaty among each other. That would be ideal.