Research logical fallacies and you will find a plethora of lists and descriptions that all seem to share a similar narrative.
You will find long and short lists of common and uncommon fallacies (illogical arguments) as well as examples of contemporary and past uses of these fallacies. But whether it’s from academia, its closely allied skeptics movement, or from people calling themselves “rational”, the lists and examples tend to share the same narrative.:
Right wingers, the religious, and traditionalists—or anyone who Leftists hate—are all illogical, bigoted idiots who should be ignored.
This problem wouldn’t be so bad if one could find a genuinely ideologically neutral source, but it seems next to impossible. Whether the search engines have been manipulated to produce these results and/or non-Leftists are simply not talking about logical fallacies is anyone’s guess. It seems to be a combination of the two. What one could find through search engines 10-20 years ago was a lot more than one finds today. Non-leftists are typically very logical thinking people, but they don’t seem to be engaged in this kind of debate or they may not be aware that their logical thinking has been systematized and put down on paper (as would be the case with the logically thinking but formally uneducated).
Had the Right been more aware, they would have seen that today’s definitions and examples used for the ancient school of logic has been re-organized by the world scientific dictatorship with its Leftist bias. They would have seen and laughed at the Left presenting itself as the sole arbiter of “logic” and morally justified opponents of logically fallacious idiot right wingers.
In reality, the opposite seems true. Academicians and their bedfellow skeptics movement Marxists are themselves guilty of consistently employing logical fallacies. Their worldview is largely based in anti-logic (anti-Logos); their use for logical fallacy inquiry, then, is really only to keep young rank-and-file Lefties from discovering true logic (through distortion of the definitions), as well as to keep the Right from figuring out their deceptive games (prevent the Right from learning about the trappings of logical fallacies). Therefore, by monopolizing this form of inquiry, they can further gatekeep for the Left, thereby maintaing their academic and societal supremacy. They get to control almost all public discourse. Double agent Jordan Peterson recently cemented this absolute public dominance when he declared that European ethno-nationalists ought to be excluded from any discussions.
Forget about historical inquiry about the alleged happenings during the “Holocaust”, because that would be Holocaust denial (appeal to ridicule, appeal to pity, ad hominem, no discussion, narrative fallacy, non-recognition, playing on emotion, reductio ad Hitlerum). Forget about challenging academia and the media’s eschatological fallacies regarding the doomed environment and climate change, for that would be climate denial (appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion, reductionism, Big Lie technique). Don’t ever criticize Israel or Jewish behaviour, for that would be a classic case of vicious anti-Semitism (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion). While you’re at it, don’t talk about the freemasons, dangers of vaccines, or world government, because that would just mean that you are one of those conspiracy theorists (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion).
As you can see from these brief examples, nobody is more guilty than the Left is of employing deceptive, fallacious arguments, especially the so called skeptics movement (they are some of the biggest hypocrites in this respect). Yet the media and academia portray the opposite (gaslighting!). With the Left’s “Holocaust denier” fallacy alone, I found at least eight appropriate categories involved in the Left’s dismissal of Holocaust inquiry. Check them out, but just beware of the source and the wording of the carefully crafted descriptions.
One of the most common fallacies of the Leftist Logical Fallacy Police (LLFPD) is to misrepresent arguments from those on the Right (strawman fallacy). They also frequently use the “fallacy fallacy”, which is when it is assumed that just because someone presents a fallacious argument, their entire position is automatically wrong, when it could simply be that they just haven’t adequately argued their position. This happens with the Right because the Left is typically more formally educated. A Leftist can academically dismiss a fallacious argument presented by a Right winger and resort to a state of cognitive dissonance (thereby re-affirming his Leftist worldview), even though the Right winger’s position is actually true. This is unfortunate.
The LLFPD favours Jews in that they dismiss any and all criticism of Jews as a collective group under the guise of the scapegoating fallacy. While this is a real and legitimate fallacy, it’s most often falsely attributed to critics of Jews. Sure, some people who know nothing about the Jewish question will callously blame Jews for things. But authentic critics will provide solid arguments that demonstrate the cause and effects of collective Jewish behaviour.
Eventually, knowledge of logical fallacies—and logic in general—will become so distorted that it will be meaningless. You can already see this trajectory with the way the Left has reclassified and reworded the definitions and examples. Orwell’s post-truth 1984 seems all the more likely.