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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| 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
Nutpicking is the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group -- hence, "picking the nut". It's cherry picking a poor representative of the group – almost a straw man – to use as ad hominem against the group. For example, antifeminists frequently paint feminists as "feminazis" by highlighting examples of ridiculous or cringey feminist behavior, rather than by critiquing mainline feminist writings. In other words: every movement has crazies, but not every movement is crazy. The proper questions are: "Does this movement promote crazies?" and "Does this movement have proportionately more crazies?"
The word is, cleverly, both a variation on the word "cherrypicking" and a portmanteau of "nut" and "nitpicking" coined by Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum (and is thus sometimes called Kevin's Law or Drum's Law):
“”If the best evidence of wackjobism you can find is a few anonymous nutballs commenting on a blog, then the particular brand of wackjobism you're complaining about must not be very widespread after all.
In scholarly circles, "nutpicking" is called the weak-man fallacy.
Nutpicking combines elements of several other fallacies; it primarily relies on guilt by association by seeking to tarnish a movement's reputation by associating it with what the "nut" is saying or doing, knowing that these statements or actions are generally considered to be unacceptable, if not outright reprehensible. Secondly, it is a type of ad hominem as it attacks an opponent's character (via the negative association), rather than countering the opponent's actual views or arguments.
The advent of the Internet (especially in conjunction with Sturgeon's Law) has made nutpicking far easier due to the massive expansion of recorded, publicly available and searchable material. Similar to Skarka's Law it's practically always possible to find some random whackjob whose opinions can be associated with your opponent's school of thought, and it's certainly much easier than it would have been in ancient Greece.
The practice of nutpicking is usually employed most frequently in political debates as a method of invoking a false equivalence or tu quoque where one side sifts through the blogs of people "on the other side" to hold up a nutty comment to say "you guys do it too!" One of the most egregious cases of nutpicking came when a Republican candidate for state legislature in Delaware ran a television ad literally nutpicking comments on a Democratic blog called Raising Kaine.
When the Tea Party found out about nutpicking, they immediately accused those who noted the racist elements of the Teabagger movement of nutpicking. That is, just because you can find a (whole lot) of racist depictions of "Kenya-born" Barack HUSSEIN Obama on Tea Party signs at "protests," it's not representative of the movement in any way, which is not racist. Of course, this also ignores the fact that the Teabaggers ran openly racist candidates like Carl Paladino, Tom Tancredo, and a guy who liked to dress up as a Nazi on weekends.
In terms of Internet culture, another form of nutpicking occurs when people selectively pick out the most egregious, harrowing, hypocritical, or downright silly statements made by self-identifying members of a group, and then paint said group as universally holding said egregious, harrowing, hypocritical, or downright silly views. Usually, these posts and quotations are from websites and social media where anyone can post nearly anything regardless of how egregious, harrowing, hypocritical, or downright silly they are. It should go without saying that all groups have their extremists, and the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory still readily applies to sites like Tumblr and Reddit.
Selective video editing
Nutpicking also occurs through editing of videos that interview random people in public about current events. The producers will edit them to select the most outrageous ones, for instance a video suggesting that University of Washington students would vote for Hillary Clinton only because she is a woman. Mark Dice has created videos asserting that people are willing to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment. The only point of these videos is to give viewers a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
The Calvinist apologist James White, founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries, is known to engage in nutpicking in a religious context. He once debated with Robert Sungenis on the relative merits of Calvinism vs. Catholicism. Given that Sungenis is a Holocaust-denying geocentrist, this gave White the opportunity to present his own brand of hardline Calvinism as moderate and reasonable in comparison. It's probably no accident that he selected the fringy Sungenis, rather than a more mainstream Catholic figure, as his debate opponent. The reverse of this situation would be a mainstream Catholic pointing to the Westboro Baptist Church as representative of Calvinism.
White also engaged in an online debate with the even kookier Catholic Theodore Shoebat, which once again enabled him to position himself as the reasonable party, since at least James White (unlike Shoebat) doesn't support burning hundreds of millions of people at the stake!
Inter-religious polemics very frequently involve nutpicking. For example, non-Muslims often point to ISIS or jihadism as representative of Islam. Similarly, one can use thuggees or aghoris as examples of Hinduism.
Debates between religious and atheist commentators often involve nutpicking by both sides. For example, Bill Nye chose as his debate partner the Young Earther Ken Ham, not an advocate of a more moderate view like theistic evolution. Creationists themselves often point to fringe scientists or pseudoscientists, who also happen to be atheists, as representative of mainstream secular science.
- This is such a frequent talking point within MRA circles, it has its own acronym: WBB (Women Behaving Badly).
- Drum's first and second post on naming nutpicking.
- "Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men" Aikin, Casey, 2010
- Nutpicking hits the big time, Talking Points Memo. September 22, 2007
- HuffPo: Crossing the Line on the Issue of Race
- Dispatches From the Culture Wars: Tancredo to speak at white supremest conference
- The Atlantic: Why Is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi?
- Campus Reform, VIDEO: Students are ‘Ready for Hillary’ just because she’s a woman by Caleb Bonham
- Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch!