Social Media’s Most Notorious Logical Fallacy — The Strawman Fallacy

So, before we start:

The strawman fallacy is where someone takes someone’s argument, statement, or point, and misrepresents it/changes it/twists it, and then attacks the misrepresented/changed/twisted version they just came up with instead of the actual argument, statement, or point.

So, if you didn’t know before what the strawman fallacy was, that is what the strawman fallacy is.

Now, I would be willing to bet, that of all the logical fallacies committed on social media, none can hold a candle to the frequency that the strawman fallacy is committed. This fallacy is everywhere. And almost any thread dedicated to a hot topic will surely have more than a few posters committing it. And this can be to the extent that most threads on social media are just miles and miles of one strawman after another. This, because our society does not prioritize critical thinking. Thus, people don’t even know when they are committing it. In fact, for some, it’s all they have to say.

But, it isn’t just social media. It is all over. Most especially politics. In fact, most of the biggest political debates that exist are actually just loops after loops of strawman fallacies. And, as a nice example, in the case where confrontations occur between pro-choice and pro-life proponents, the following strawman fallacy is far too common:

Person 1: “I support a woman’s choice.”

Person 2: “Oh, so you’re pro-killing then, huh?” (Strawman fallacy)

Now, what makes this a strawman fallacy is that Person 2 changed the Person 1’s statement. Person 1 did not state they were “pro-killing.” They said something else. What they said was “I support a woman’s choice.” That does not say “I am pro-killing.” Two vastly different statements. And, it should be quite obvious that they are not at all equal. Thus, Person 2 is taking their idea and imposing it on what the Person 1 stated. The main issue here is the two statements are NOT equal.

“I support a woman’s choice.” IS NOT EQUAL TO “Oh, so you’re pro-killing then, huh?”

These are not equivalent statements. And it is not at all what the Person 1 said. Person 1 is not stating they are pro-killing. Read their statement once again. Does it say pro-killing anywhere in it? Trying to say that Person 1 said they were pro-killing is making a whole entirely different statement.

It’s not even what is being discussed.

And that is the problem. The strawman fallacy diverts the entire discussion to the extent that interlocutors are not even discussing what the original point was. Hence, they are literally going from one topic to another, all under the impression they are on topic.

But they are not.

And it isn’t just political hot-topics that are susceptible to this. Even the most idiotic, vapid arguments can elicit a strawman fallacy. And as a great example, here is another social media favorite:

Person 1: “I like dogs.”

Person 2: “So why do you hate cats?” (Strawman fallacy)

And there we have it, Person 2 committed a strawman fallacy. Person 1 didn’t even mention cats. Look at the statement. Where are cats mentioned in Person 1’s statement? They are not. They simply stated they like dogs. This did not indicate they even hated anything. But for Person 2, saying Person 1 hates is a great way to attack them. They can then be loaded with shame for having unreasonable hate for cats. In front of the right audience, Person 2 can make themselves look good by appearing to hold the moral high ground. That is, unless Person 1, and the audience, are knowledgeable in critical thinking and know the logical fallacies. Most especially the strawman fallacy.

Another political hot-topic strawman fallacy that has been repeated over and over again is:

Person 1: “We need to abolish the Death Penalty.”

Person 2: “Oh, so you just want to let murderers go free?” (Strawman fallacy)

And there we have it, Person 2 committed a strawman fallacy. Person 1 was not talking about letting murder’s go free. They didn’t even say murderers should go unpunished. They didn’t even say “murderers.” They just referred to the Death Penalty and how they think it should be abolished. Logically, these two statements are not equivalent whatsoever. Person 2 is trying to undermine Person 1’s statement, again, to make it easier to attack. By making Person 1 seem like they are in favor of murderers going free, Person 2 may give the impression that they hold the moral high ground while insinuating that Person 1 is a dishonest player at work here.

And there is the whole point — -the dark side to this. The dark side is that committing this fallacy can work with the right audience. For those who do not how to identify sophistry, twisting people’s statements so that they appear morally corrupt, unethical, or indecent, can sway an uneducated audience. And the strawman fallacy is great for that. Hence this is why it is found so often in politics.

But, one place it may show up even more than both social media and politics is in religious arguments and debates. Far too often, all those ‘counterarguments’ against religion are defended with strawman retorts. Here is another far too often used example which can be found all over social media:

Person 1: “We need to get rid of religion.”

Person 2: “Oh, so you’re fine with an immoral society?” (Strawman fallacy)

The problem is that the removal of religion does not at all mean that society will immediately become immoral. In fact, it could be well argued that religion itself has no effect on the morality of society. It might even have the opposite effect. Thus, what Person 2 is doing is trying to twist Person 1’s statement to make them look as if they are fine with immorality. This is not what Person 1 said whatsoever. Person 1 simply said, that for whatever reason they still have yet to disclose, we need to get rid of religion. The topic of that action’s effect on morality is a whole other topic. But, if Person 2’s intention was to make Person 1 look bad to an audience unfamiliar with the logical fallacies, this might work to win over such an audience. And far too often this is what we see people doing — using sophistry.

At this point, you might be running through your mind, all those conversations you’ve been in where you just had that feeling that something wasn’t right. You knew something was off, but you just couldn’t put your finger on it. Especially in the fleeting moments of a verbal conversation where you can’t just scroll back. But more than often in this scenario, it isn’t farfetched to think that you just ran into a logical fallacy, especially a strawman fallacy. They are quite frequent and most of them are committed unknowingly. In fact, because critical thinking is not a major subject that gets taught in our education systems, most people commit this fallacy quite often and have no idea they are committing it.

It even occurs in our very own homes over the simplest of discussions:

Person 1: “I don’t like pasta.”

Person 2: “Oh, so you think Italian food sucks?” (Strawman fallacy)

Person 3: “Who the hell doesn’t like Italian food?”

And here we see Person 2 committing the strawman. Just because Person 1 said they don’t like pasta has no bearing on Italian food at large. Pizza isn’t pasta. Prosciutto isn’t either. So, Person 2 is not only committing a strawman, they are also in error.

The good thing here is, however, Person 3 brings the discussion back to its senses and makes the most logical statement of all!