Nutpicking

A variant of guilt by association in which, through an unjustified generalisation, a group is to discredited by referring to its most confused, most abstruse, or least mainstream members.

Take, for example, a statement like the following:

There are radical feminists who want to lock up all men at night.
That is why feminism is a radical, misandric movement.

While these and similar radical positions do indeed exist, they are hardly representative of feminism as a whole. To cite them as representative of the entire movement is therefore, at the very least, unfair – especially when such an argument is used to associate people with statements that they themselves may not even support.

• Weak Man [fallacy]
• Kevin’s Law
• Drum’s Law

Every political or ideological movement comprises people with a wide range of views. Among them, there are always some which, to put it mildly, can be described as unsettling.

The greater and more heterogeneous the group, the more pronounced the range of variation – but also the fewer options there are for sanctioning deviant attitudes: Thus, vaguely defined groups such as worldviews (e.g., religions) have fewer means of ruling out erroneous positions than, say, a political party or a company.

The term “nut-picking” is listed here as a variation of the guilt by association fallacy, as it is an unfair method of associating someone with a group (or part of a group) that is viewed negatively.

This can also be viewed as a form of straw man argument, when one attacks a position that the opponent does not hold at all.

The underlying fallacies are, firstly, hasty generalization – since conclusions are drawn here based on (too) few examples, which may not even be representative, — and, secondly, the continuum fallacy, which stems from ignoring gradual differences in characteristics.

Last but not least, it can also be an extreme form of cherry-picking, where one selectively cites only rather far-fetched examples that support one's own position, while ignoring other examples.

The term “Nutpicking” alludes to “cherry-picking”, which refers to the selective choice of facts (whether suitable or tailored to suit), merged with “nut” as a colloquial term for an “idiot” or a “crazy person”.

So “nutpicking” can be loosely interpreted as: “picking out (the biggest) oddballs”.

In its most extreme form, this involves gathering the most outlandish comments – for example, from a discussion forum – and using them as “evidence” of the radical views held by the entire group. This is apparently also the original meaning of the word.

In most modern democracies, the political landscape has long moved beyond a simple left-right divide. Even in countries that effectively have a two-party system, these parties still encompass each a wide variety of political positions.

While it should thus be considered overly simplistic, the left-right divide is still usually considered the most significant political distinction, with the labels “left-wing” and “right-wing”, or local equivalents, being central to many political debates.

Unsurprisingly, this lends itself to the easy discrediting of political opponents by “nutpicking”, as in the following examples:

Amongst right-wingers, there are neo-Nazis who want to establish a fascist regime.
That is why all right-wingers are Nazis.

Or conversely, from the opposite perspective:

There are violent extremists amongst the left.
Therefore, all left-wingers are radical perpetrators of violence.

Such oversimplifications fail to recognise that the vast majority of the political right (which includes, amongst other things, conservatism and certain liberal movements) harbours no sympathy whatsoever for neo-Nazism, just as the majority of the political left strictly rejects violence as a means of political discourse.

As the terms are defined so broadly that it is impossible to draw a clear distinction from extreme positions, it is not justified to make such comparisons.

It is a different matter if the groups do in fact have the opportunity to set themselves apart, but choose not to:

Party A has members within its ranks who justify the use of violence as a means of political confrontation (and has not clearly distanced itself from these views).
Party A clearly has no problem with the use of violence as a means of political confrontation.

Or, for the other side:

Party B has members who trivialise the crimes of the Nazi era and advocate similar crimes in the future (and does nothing, or too little, to expel these members from the party).
Party B apparently sympathises with neo-Nazis.

More examples follow…

• Hasty generalisation
• Guilt by association
• Continuum fallacy
• Straw man argument

• Nutpicking on RationalWiki