Debate Tactics Analysis

Fallacy Alert: Argument by Tangent Mechanism

Learn how to call out bullshit when they argue by tangential supporting constructs.

Dumbass Argument Styles Deconstructed

Ever seen an argument like this?

“I support State’s rights!”

“I support {insert person’s} right, to free speech!” (after saying something politically horrible)

When someone makes an argument like this, do you ever feel, somewhat pissed, as if that person is using acute pick-pocketing skills and ran off with your wallet and wristwatch? You just know something’s wrong but you can’t explain it, or chase after them? Perhaps you get that same feeling as when someone blatantly lies in your face.

You know the feeling.

You know there’s something up, but you don’t have the vocabulary to call them out. You squint your eyes, maybe look to the left or right, and you don’t know what to say.

Something’s logically, rationally wrong and you can’t put your finger on it.

This is what’s going on: In argumentation, they are arguing to protect the peripheral infrastructure in which something travels, or the package something is wrapped in. Versus actually being transparent in what they are really arguing for.

You don’t like this because it’s a form of deception. And we don’t like deception.

Argument by Vehicle (Infrastructure) Fallacy

I don’t know what exactly to call it. Argument by tangentially-related construct? Argument by protecting vague mechanism? Argument by vehicle? Yeah, that’s a great, descriptive term for it. I can show you better than I can tell you:

Imagine if you are a terrorist or criminal tracking fellow. Your terrorist criminal is getting away on a plane. When you approach the terrorist criminal, you are stopped by your own agency and these people go, “We support freedom of international air travel,” or “we support flying planes” or some shit.

You argue there’s a dangerous terrorist criminal on that plane, and it doesn’t matter — they will argue to the bone for some stupid reason, that they have perfect support of that plane, and you should too.

To them, the plane has a “right” to fly, and nothing shall impede this right to international air travel.

Never mind the woman needing born control, or the LGBTQ person or the Black person they captured and killed on sight on the aircraft last week, screaming blue lives matter. Today, for some strange reason they will NOT allow you to impede the travel of that aircraft, regardless of the danger inside of the fuselage.

Protecting the Mechanism, Argument by Infrastructure

These folks — American conservatives — are protecting the vehicle in order to protect the target. They are protecting the peripheral mechanism at which something rides or travels. This is argument by tangential infrastructure.

• When the red guy is “white supremacist fascism” the plane becomes “free speech.”
• When the red guy is needless criminalization of women via Roe v Wade reversal, the plane becomes “States rights.”
• When the red guy is sexism in the workplace, the plane becomes “free speech.”
• When the red guy is racist remarks or racist ideology, the plane becomes “free speech.”
• When the red guy is police accountability, the plane becomes “back the blue.”
• When the red guy was Jim Crow — or hell, Civil Rights, the plane becomes “States rights.”
• When the red guy is the neglect of women’s health, diminishment of the right to privacy, and loss of the right to choose, the plane becomes “pro-life.”

This pattern goes on and on. This is among the primary rhetorical devices conservatives use, and I know you have to be sick of it.

Is This Just Moving Goalposts Though?

I know that the term moving goalposts exist, and this is definitely like moving goalposts to a great extent, but the term moving goalposts in this case isn’t descriptive enough.

Moving goalposts best describes when someone changes the rules or criteria in an argument. This argument by vehicle fallacy happens when someone already assumes the defense of a tangentially related, vague-ass supporting construct that facilitates what they cannot defend directly. They didn’t change goalposts; it’s already where they are.

Want to be okay with racist rants, without the stain of racist rants on your public image? Just support the free speech (of it). I mean shit, free speech is a near-unimpeachable construct. Who’s clown enough going to argue against free speech?

The argument by vehicle fallacy is a form of a scrutiny shield. Moving goalposts aren’t necessarily scrutiny shields.

Scrutiny shields are rhetorical devices that attempt to evade scrutiny. “I have a Black friend,” “it’s just an opinion” — those are scrutiny shields. Shit people say to avoid being held accountable for what they first just said. So it is at this point we find the distinction between moving goalposts and argumentation by tangent vehicle.

What if This Mess Was Used Elsewhere?

What if for example, someone argued, in the wake of Eric Snowden leaving the United States with Top Secret classified data and running to adversarial nations like Russia and China, that they “support open international travel?” Would that even make sense? Like, why announce your support for open international travel when the topic is stolen classified data and resources? This is what that’s like.

What if, in the wake of OJ Simpson infamously riding away in his Ford Bronco, evading police, someone argued for policing authorities to not capture OJ Simpson because, “Bro, I support interstate road infrastructure bro,” or “Well I support OJ’s right to drive.”

That’s what this is.

Conclusion

The next time you see someone (it’s always a conservative) announce they support some tangentially related side-item that supports the main subject in question, use the Socratic Questioning Method.

Keep them talking. Make them spit it out, or back them into a corner.

Ask them the corning question:

“Of what?”

For example, when someone says the Confederacy in the United States didn’t fight to keep slavery going, they fought for “states' rights,” ask them:

“States’ rights to do what? States rights for?”

They ALWAYS defend the mechanism of racism, white supremacy, sexism, patriarchy, homophobia, and transphobia via the announcement of support of a near-unimpeachable civic construct.

Force their hand. Make them spit it out or trap them in the corner like the rat they truly are. Force them and your audience to look at the subject or target thing they actually are defending.

And intellectually beat the living daylights out of them.

Make an example out of their bitchass.

✪ I have dad jokes. Subscribe. ✪ I have the best socio-political street photography. Look. ✪ This, is my Twitter. This, is my Instagram. ✪ AfroSapiophile: A publication for intelligent Black thought.