There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Part of the series on|
Logic and rhetoric
“”Perhaps the worst social toxin of our age is the belief that you should only form friendships with those who have similar political beliefs.
- The belief that everybody you hate is exactly the same.
- The belief that evidence that nobody takes you seriously means you are very serious.
- Any attempt to popularize these beliefs in book and associated website form.
|—Über-tankie BigMorgan summing up all of Jonanism in one fell swoop|
Fundamentalists and many religious right pundits tend to label anybody who disagrees with them "Anti-Christian" or "Anti-Judeo-Christian values". Wingnuts usually call nearly anybody who disagrees with them as "liberal" or "leftist", and far-left activists may call anyone who argues with them "bourgeois", "racist", or something similar. However in order to fit the label of this fallacy the person must be some sort of pathetic pundit or activist who tries to push their nonsense through cheap mediums such as books or websites. When ignored or laughed off these pundits or activists may believe it is proof that their "enemies" control the media or other institutions. One could say that "Jonanism" is the combination of several fallacies, mainly overgeneralizations, the false dilemma ("With us or against us!"), and the Galileo gambit.
Keep in mind that the offenders have to be considered "fringe", "nutty", or just plain stupid by most of society. Jerry Falwell actually had power and was influential so he couldn't qualify, whereas the pundits below are largely considered jokes and couldn't change much no matter how hard they tried. Most of these people believe that the fact that they have to resort to cheap means to get their point across is evidence their enemies control the media or that they're persecuted.
- Jonah Goldberg — Thinks fascists and liberals are the same. Goldberg is in turn considered an idiot by actual historians and political scientists.
- Dennis Prager — Believes all of his enemies are anti-Judeo-Christian, or are "Leftists" (to the point where he calls Ron Paul a leftist for straying from a neocon point of view). His ridiculous articles about things like how universities are turning students bisexual and other such nonsense leaves him to be laughed off by most (with the exception of certain wingnut circles who actually believe him to be an intellectual). Him being laughed off or ignored is evidence of the liberal feminist conspiracy.
- Ray Comfort — (See entry on Dennis Prager).
- Theodore Beale — (See entry on Ray Comfort).
- Ann Coulter — (See entry on Theodore Beale).
- Dinesh D'Souza — (See entry on Ann Coulter).
- Liberal Logic 101 — Poster child for this fallacy, believing all of its enemies to be liberal while feeling persecuted by the "liberal media".
- Jack Chick — Believed all of his enemies were anti-Protestant. Or somesuch.
- Katie Pavlich — Pushes conspiracy theory filled books about how Barack Obama is coming for your guns and believes anyone not sufficiently right-wing for her tastes is liberal. When ignored she believes it's proof of the liberal media.
- Cathy Brennan — Radical feminist who believes that all of her opponents are anti-feminist or anti-women. When told she's clearly nuts, the remark is instead taken as proof the "misogynists" are persecuting her.
- Any libertarian blogger who consistently calls people they disagree with "statists".
- Metapedia and any other Neo-Nazi webshite that uses words like "Jewish/Zionist" and/or "Marxist" to describe people or stuff they hate.
- Radical right blogger John Hawkins embodies this fallacy, believing that everyone he hates is anti-American and sympathetic towards terrorists.
- MRA bloggers who believe everyone who opposes them is a "radical feminist" or "anti-man".
- Islamic Awakening — Thinks everybody against them is "anti-Muslim" and the fact that the "heathens" consider them crazy is evidence they're doing good.
- Clenard Childress — Runs a website which claims that abortion is a "black genocide".
- Moonbattery.com — Thinks anybody even slightly to their left is a "Moonbat".
- Any Marxist blogger or writer who labels all of his/her enemies "bourgeois scum" or anything similar.
- Hard green bloggers who believe all their enemies are "corporate whores" or something similar.
- Certain New Atheists — such as Sam Harris — who are prone to labeling any non-religious critics as part of the "Regressive Left". Before that, the "Postmodernist" label was popularly used.
- W. Cleon Skousen — Originated the "Nazis and Commies were really both extreme left wing movements" shtick that has become sadly prevalent in certain right-wing circles with its nonsensical redefinition of "extreme left wing" as any form of totalitarianism and "extreme right wing" meaning anarchy. Not to be confused with horseshoe theory.
- Andrew Schlafly — ’Nuff said.