A genetic fallacy is a flawed argument that comes in negative and positive variations. In the negative version a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken as evidence discrediting the claim or thing itself. The positive variation is an error in reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or proof that the thing is good. A Demonic Genetic Fallacy is, as would be expected, always negative.
A genetic fallacy, demonic or not, differs from the ad hominem fallacies in that a strictly defined ad hominem always targets an individual while the genetic fallacy can be used to target groups or institutions.
The demonic version of this fallacy involves two steps, the first of which distinguishes the demonic from the normal genetic fallacy.
First, the target, which is the origin of the claim or thing, is demonized. As noted in the first essay on the subject, demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening. This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target. Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. Second, the attack on the origin of the claim or thing is taken to discredit the claim or thing.
The demonic genetic fallacy has the following two forms:
Premise 1. Claim (or argument) C originates from group G.
Premise 2. Group G is demonized.
Conclusion: Therefore, C is false (or the argument fails).
Premise 1. A originated from O.
Premise 2. O is demonized.
Conclusion: A is discredited.
The reason why the demonic genetic fallacy is a fallacy is that demonizing a group or origin has no bearing on the truth of a claim, the quality of an argument or the origin of a thing. In addition to the logical error, a demonic genetic fallacy also suffers from the fact that demonizing, by definition, involves deception. At the very least, demonizing involves taking facts out of context and commonly involves outright falsehoods.
A demonic genetic fallacy can have considerable psychological force since demonizing typically goes beyond the usual attacks in a non-demonic genetic fallacies and thus can trigger strong emotions. A common tactic is to demonize the target using stereotypes the audience already accepts and by appealing to their biases, fears and prejudices. Such an audience will be inclined to accept the demonization as true and their emotional response can lead them to accept the fallacious reasoning.
There are two main defenses against demonizing. One is to be aware of the logical flaw in the fallacy. Even if the demonizing claims were true, the reasoning would still be flawed: true but irrelevant negative claims about the origin of something, no matter how terrible, do not disprove a claim or argument or prove a defect in the thing. The other is to be critical about negative claims and only accept them if they are adequately supported by evidence. One excellent example of the demonic genetic fallacy in the real world is Trumps demonizing of the media.
While Republicans have long attacked the media as having a liberal bias, Donald Trump escalated this attack to full demonization. He has gone far beyond accusing them of bias and has labeled journalist as disgusting, crooked, and dangerous. In terms of full on demonization, he has declared reporters to be “the enemy of the American people.” While Trump does attack individual journalists, this general attack on journalists is intended to discredit the claims Trump dislikes, such as accurate reporting of his lies and misdeeds. While the media certainly does suffer from the usual human biases and some journalists dislike Trump a great deal, his demonizing is generally composed of outright lies
Mike, the words Trump used are “the fake news media are the enemy of the people.” By this he means that when the press abandons normal journalistic standards in an effort to hurt him it is not good for our democracy.
Mike, there is a basic principle of philosophical analysis called the “principle of charity” that you have abandoned over the last couple of years, presumably due to your hatred of Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity#:~:targetText=In%20philosophy%20and%20rhetoric%2C%20the,its%20best%2C%20strongest%20possible%20interpretation.
Seriously, dude. You’re just dumb.
He does not mean that and you know it.
See TJ, told you you were being stupid. You don’t even know what Trump really means when he says stuff, like Mike and I do. Gee, you’re dumb.
That’s exactly what Trump means when he talks about “fake news.”
Here is a list of 100 stories about Trump that the media got wrong. You can see from this list why Sharyl Attkisson may not be universally beloved.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
Not at all, he means news that is critical of him. Declaring the media an enemy of the people is not a considered call for objective and accurate journalism.
I’m still unsure of the credibility of the source. Do you have established, credible sources that also confirm these claims?
he means news that is critical of him
I can’t argue with that. If Trump ever tells the literal truth in a public political statement, it’s by accident. Personally, that makes me uncomfortable, and I don’t like the discomfort.
But it raises two more points.
1. “Fake News” is badly defined. If we give examples of possible “fake news”, from completely fictitious events. to stories that are factually true but biased, different people will identify different examples as “fake news”. With that in mind, is the mention of fake news even consistent with a statement that can be judged as either the literal truth or not?
2. Everybody knows that Trump doesn’t stick to the literal truth. They knew it when they elected him, and he hasn’t changed a bit. He frequenly uses weasel wording like “people say” or “that’s what they tell me” as a kind of weak deniability, Everybody knows. And everybody adjusts their expectations and understanding and interpretation accordingly. Just as I know that when I see a news article touting a “new study” featured on this blog, no due diligence has been done, and it’s very likely to be quite false, I know when Trump makes a statement, he does so for the effect on his preferred narrative rather than for truth. Should this make a difference to how we judge him?
True, which is why some folks dislike “fake news.” I prefer to use terms like “lies” or “biased claim”, etc.
I define “fake news” as news stories from ostensibly reputable sources, like CNN or the NYT, that:
1) are fabricated from thin air (reporters just making stuff up)
or
2) are so thinly sourced that the story falls apart in a day or two
Sharyl Attkisson collected over 100 of those stories in the link above. She documents each story with links, so there is no need to trust her. Mike probably believes she is partisan, but she has done investigative reporting which has gone against both parties.
Many journalists are putting partisan loyalty above their love of the truth. There may also be some financial incentives to do this–i.e., keep throwing a steady supply of raw meat to the true believers.
I call this the Rachel Maddowization of the news.
What do the links link to? One can link to anything.
Are the error rates on these stories unusual compared to error rates on other stories (in terms of errors per 100 stories)?
So if you do not accept references to original sources, what kind of scholarship do you accept?
I do accept proper references to original sources in that referencing an original source properly says what the source said with proper context and with the principle of charity in play. But referencing an original source does not prove that the original source was right nor does it automatically mean that the reference is not a straw man, out of context or otherwise problematic.
I will certainly agree that media corporations have serious issues and that there are journalists who get rather too eager to go after Trump; just as there are journalists who were too eager to go after Obama, Bush, Clinton and so on. I rely heavily on NPR for political news because their news tends to be calmer and they take the time to interview people across the spectrum–so I get to hear, for example, a Republican senator say what he thinks as well as what his Democratic colleague thinks. I’m not claiming NPR is perfect, just that they generally do their homework and don’t just push one side. As you might guess, I steer clear of FOX and MSNBC for the most part. But FOX obviously puts some resources into their actual news (if only to give themselves credibility), so I’ll listen to some of their interviews and stories.
She lists 100 stories about Trump that the media got wrong. She provides links to the original stories so that you can read them for yourself and see that they were wrong.
What else can she possibly do? Is it her fault if some people deliberately blind themselves to what has happened?
Well, sure-fabricated news would be fake news.
I do agree that the media corporations are driven by profit; they are pushed to put out stories that get attention so they can sell ads. Fox and MSNBC also clearly have ideological motivations as well that flavor their profit motive.