Jonanism

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.

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
v - t - e
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 BoghossianFile:Wikipedia's W.svg[1]

Definition
  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.

Offenders
“”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 as "liberal" or "leftist", and far-left activists 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.

Examples
This section requires more sources.

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. In turn, actual historians and political scientists regard Goldberg as an idiot.
  • Theodore Beale — (See entry on Dennis Prager).
  • Cathy Brennan — Trans-exclusionary 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.
  • Jack Chick — Believed all of his enemies were anti-Protestant. Or somesuch. Also believed that Islam, Wicca, Satanism, atheism, and communism were all created by the Catholic Church.
  • Clenard Childress — Runs a website which claims that abortion is a "black genocide".
  • Ray Comfort — (See entry on Dennis Prager).
  • Ann Coulter — (See entry on Dennis Prager).
  • Dinesh D'Souza — (See entry on Dennis Prager).
  • Hard green bloggers who believe all their enemies are "corporate whores" or something similar.
  • John Hawkins, radical right blogger, embodies this fallacy, believing that everyone he hates is anti-American and sympathetic towards terrorists.
  • Islamic Awakening — Thinks everybody against them is "anti-Muslim" and the fact that the "heathens" consider them crazy is evidence they're doing good.
  • Liberal Logic 101 — Poster child for this fallacy, believing all of its enemies to be liberal while feeling persecuted by the "liberal media".
  • Any Marxist blogger or writer who labels all of his/her enemies "bourgeois scum" or anything similar.
  • Any libertarian blogger who consistently calls people they disagree with "statists".
  • Men's rights movement bloggers who believe everyone who opposes them is a "radical feminist" or "anti-man".
  • Metapedia and any other Neo-Nazi webshite that uses words like "Jewish/Zionist" and/or "Marxist" to describe people or stuff they hate.
  • Moonbattery.com — Thinks anybody even slightly to their left is a "Moonbat".
  • 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.
  • Candace Owens — Everyone I don't like is a racist socialist trying to destroy America!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Andrew Schlafly — 'Nuff said.
  • 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.

So, basically

If you're ethnic/female/queer and you refuse to be friends with somebody that, at best thinks you aren't human and at worst will literally try and murder you, then you're the bad guy for not playing nice.

gollark: Idea: hide secret data in random system shared library files.
gollark: As you probably should be anyway.
gollark: You could just... specifically handle those.
gollark: Because you *can* "hide" files that way, people *did* it, which is bad.
gollark: If we did not HAVE hidden files, it would likely be less common to foolishly hide stuff.

See also

References
  1. https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/830641554008141825
  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).
This article is issued from Rationalwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.