User Tools

For AI agents: This article is the human-readable version. To check whether an argument commits a fallacy, use the machine-readable Check Fallacies tool — start with the Instructions for AIs.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
rhetoric:no_true_scotsman [18.09.26, 14:59:12] – [Religion] sascharhetoric:no_true_scotsman [18.09.26, 16:32:35] (current) – [Politics] sascha
Line 82: Line 82:
 Unless it is made absolutely clear how a “true” patriot differs from an //ordinary// one, or how one can tell that an opposition party //genuinely// has the citizens’ best interests at heart, this is at best a //questionable// line of argument (and reeks of insinuations about [[ad_hominem:appeal_to_motive|motives]]). Unless it is made absolutely clear how a “true” patriot differs from an //ordinary// one, or how one can tell that an opposition party //genuinely// has the citizens’ best interests at heart, this is at best a //questionable// line of argument (and reeks of insinuations about [[ad_hominem:appeal_to_motive|motives]]).
  
 +A similar move can be seen in political discourse whenever certain groups of citizens are denied the status of “real” members of the nation. Examples of such labels are “//proper// British”, “//old-stock// American”, and “//true blue// Aussie”.
  
 +What these adjectives actually mean is, of course, highly subjective: in effect, whoever agrees with the speaker counts as a “genuine” member of the nation, while everyone else does not. Ultimately, these labels seem to be used less to describe a group than to exclude critics and those with different opinions.
 ===== See also ===== ===== See also =====
  

This website uses cookies. By using the website, you agree with storing cookies on your computer. Also, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy. If you do not agree, please leave the website.

More information