Talk:Nutpicking

I removed the majority of the content regarding the paragraph starting with "Nutpicking is also one tactic used by bigots"

Explaining a fallacy by using ad hominen seems a bit too ironic for rational wiki. Also there was a few sentences in which the original author did not understand what the Scotsman's fallacy was. ^{— Unsigned, by: 65.67.113.117 / talk / contribs}

I've reinstated some of that text. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The "In terms of Internet culture" paragraph reeks of Scottsman fallacy. And why is there a reference to the strawman fallacy? Nutpicking is about someone citing a fringe extremist and labeling it as the norm. Strawman is about making up some fake person and labeling that the norm. A living breathing person can't be a strawman.

I think it needs to be described more carefully, and in a more formal way in the context of logical fallacies, because it's actually a combination of several. The elements of a straw man are present only if you include the "selective form" posited by Talisse & Aikin (2006), which is also informally called the weak man argument. This is where you don't misrepresent the opponent's argument (normal straw man) but rather cherry-pick among the opponent's platform for those points that are weakest and easiest to refute. At the same time, nutpicking also contains elements of an negative association fallacy aka guilt by association, because the "nut" in question is seen as having mutually-agreed-upon undesirable traits (e.g. stupidity, insanity, bigotry). Third, it contains elements of a hasty generalization, in that the "nut" or "nuts" are presented in such a manner as to generalize there negative attributes to a much larger group. I know this is an informal term that was hastily made up for a specific political reason, but I think the concept in generally is a worthy one. It's even mentioned in the journal Argumentation by Aikin in 2011.Legitimus (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham example is valid. Bill Nye was specifically arguing against Young Earth Creationism and, if I recall correctly, had no interest in disproving theistic evolution. Icestar1186 (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WERE FAMUS

Decent series. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 06:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Politics Section

This short section needs editing due to clear bias on both (or multiple) political sides. Examples include:

"one of the most egregious..." - Unnecessary opinion, though it's a good example otherwise.

"literally nutpicking..." - Why do we need this adverb to provide emphasis? Sounds like high school gossip.

"For liberals, for example," - Not only is this bad writing, but it's generalization and not needed to make the point.

"Teabagger movement..." - This is obvious insult, and has nothing to do with giving a good example of Nutpicking. In fact, this whole paragraph is editorialization. The example in it could be stated more neutrally and more effectively.

"Their favourite target is generally Karen White..." - I don't speak for 'TERFs', but the use of 'they' and 'their' in this paragraph is dubious.

I would make these changes without comment, and have, but I keep getting reverted in what seems like bad faith by LeftyGreenMario and Ikanreed. If you are acting in good faith, please explain or offer some criticism.Digitalbarbarian (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

1. See response. Our Newcomer's guide also responds to most of these criticisms. I'm not sure why you call the first one an "unnecessary opinion". Maybe it runs afoul of "show don't tell", but the sentence is perfectly fine within RationalWiki's way of writing things, snarky and no tone moderation.
2. See above.
3. Yeah, given that we often put "liberals" and "conservatives" at opposing ends, we need that part to show that nutpicking can happen to liberals who are quick to accuse conservative groups as racists.
4. It's an insult. So what? It's consistent with our snark in the wiki. I also don't see how neutralizing it is going to be more effective at presenting a case. Maybe we should quantify the racist slogans during the Tea Party movement rather than the vague (whole lot), but it's already supported by the openly racist candidates the movement ran with.
5. Can't say either if TERFs love regularly using Karen White as a prop for their bigotry, but it doesn't justify removing that entire paragraph either. It's already supported by a source, but I think quibbling over the "favorite target" wording borders on pedantic and missing the point, that TERFs have used that example to the point their viewpoints are represented and reported, and it's illustrative and representative of the TERF movement.

Snarky reversions aren't "bad faith" edits. We, on the other hand, believed your edits were bad faith because they echo drive-by users who do exactly what you're doing for articles even in issues like homeopathy or climate change. Making large changes without comment is exactly the mistake you were doing and why you were reverted. P.S. Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~ at the end). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This has another name

This is called fallacy of composition, why is nutpicking a thing when there is already a well defined fallacy for the same behaviour? Maybe someone is trying to apply what they want in a reasoning which they couldn't to the page of fallacy of composition in order to create their own victory in an argument, a sort of use of the fallacy fallacy? —Signed by an anonymous person. (Edit by same person: I don't have an account and I don't care to make one. Therefor I can't actually sign what I post.) ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.70.198.226 / talk}