How to Defend Against False Narratives

The number of times I have seen someone manipulated by unscrupulous journalists or seen it happen in a regular debate or argument is astounding.

In discourse today, there are very few who actually understand logical fallacies. Either that or they understand them and commit them, anyway.

Anything that comes after the sentence ‘so you’re saying…’ or ‘so your position is…’ is usually a false rephrasing of the other person’s position. Sometimes people do this to better clarify the other person’s position, but most times they do it to weaken or misrepresent the other person’s argument.

These are red flag statements. Look out for them if the media ever interviews you. Even in everyday discourse, be aware of these statements. Also, be on guard for any summary that anyone tries to make of your position and call out any misunderstanding straight away, and reiterate what your actual intention and meaning are.

This fallacy is a strawman argument, where someone will cleverly manipulate your argument and then claim victory by proving their false representation of your argument to be false. They rephrase your argument or statement in a weakened and inaccurate form, and claim that is what you had stated.

Strawman arguments are a logical fallacy described as and I quote.

“Strawman:-You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that it surprised him that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.”

source:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I have seen people succumb to this, because they have limited time for response or the questioner surprises them.

A silly example would be:

Questioner: “what do you think about meat?”

You: “I think meat is very nutritious, and I like meat personally.”

Questioner: “So you support the cruelty and the methods the meat industry uses to kill cows and sheep? Surely you must, because you enjoy their product?”

This is how they twist your words and make you look bad by importing ‘new facts’ and asserting that you hold the position that they have ascribed to you.

This tactic surprises you and puts you in defensive mode and is like an ambush in conversation. This is a tactic that the media and politicians will use all the time in debates and arguments.

Be aware of it and clarify what they asked and how you responded, then separate the insinuation from what they asked you.

Reframing the discussion is important. Do not accept assumptions that misrepresent your position.

Something like “You asked me if I liked meat, not if I approved of how the meat industry operates.”

The quickest way to give yourself time to think would be to say something like. “I reject your insinuation.”

Alternatively, you could use the same tactic and ask.

“Why do you hate most of the people in the country who eat meat?” Then let the journalist defend themself.

You could also say something like. “Lies and deception are not a professional way to conduct a discussion.”

This will reverse the position and paint them as a liar and a deceiver.

I recommend these three steps, when dealing with most media or confrontational situations.

Reject the insinuation. This will give you time to formulate your attack.

Ask them a question that attacks the position or statement that was made.

Wait for response and ask for an honest discussion.

This is a technique that will allow you to stand your ground and not to be intimidated. The first step is crucial and the opening statement, “I reject your insinuation.” places the ball back firmly in their court, and as they come back with why they believe their position is right, you can then attack them with your statement about them.

Step number 2 that you will use above is also a logical fallacy, known as:

“tu quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser — you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced too-kwo-kweh. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.”

source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

But in this situation, to fight fire with fire is probably a good strategy. I do not like using fallacies to combat fallacies, but sometimes it is neccessary.

Let me know what you think?