From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Jonanism could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Perhaps the worst social toxin of our age is the belief that you should only form friendships with those who have similar political beliefs.
Peter BoghossianWikipedia[1]

Jonanism is the logical fallacy of believing that everyone you hate is the same. The term is a portmanteau of the name of Jonah Goldberg, and Onanism.


  1. The belief that everybody you hate is exactly the same.
  2. The belief that since nobody takes you seriously, you must be very serious.
  3. Any attempt to popularize these beliefs in book and associated website form.


I always thought rational wiki was a right-libertarian/ancap site. It's merely "liberal?"
—Über-tankie BigMorgan summing up all of Jonanism in one fell swoop[2]

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 "liberal" or "leftist", and moonbats may call anyone who argues with them "fascist", "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 that their enemies control the media or that they're persecuted. For actually influential people who think all their critics are the same, see fallacy of opposition.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  2. I always thought rational wiki was a right-libertarian/ancap site. It's merely "liberal?" by Comrade BigMorgan (c. August 29, 2016) Reddit/r/FULLCOMMUNISM (archived from 10 Sep 2016 07:02:32 UTC).