[001]
phasmid
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"For those who are wondering \\\"Is a straw man with a good argument still a straw man?\\\", the answer is \\\"Usually.\\\" The point in question is presented as bad, the audience is supposed to see it as bad ... The straw man can still have stereotypical, oversimplified arguments.\\\"
A stereotypical or oversimplified argument is not \\\'\\\'\\\'not a strawman\\\'\\\'\\\' if people are actually using it. It doesn\\\'t matter whether the argument is presented as bad or not -- that\\\'s a moral presumption or an assumption that the audience is on the same political/philosophical plank the author is. It seems this effect happens mostly when the author isn\\\'t using a straw-man at all, but is just presuming audience agreement.
\\\"This trope is in play only when there is an actual Strawman involved, ie the argument is presented as completely wrong despite realistic arguments in the other direction.\\\"
Again, this is not a straw-man. A straw-man is a complete misrepresentation of the opponent\\\'s arguments. As the logical fallacy is about the context used in who, individually, you are arguing against, it\\\'s very hard if not impossible to have a straw-man that attacks everyone.
On a similar note, I most often see this invoked/discussed when a person watching the \\\"straw-man\\\" already agrees with the side being portrayed. In this case the villain doesn\\\'t even need to have a good point because he\\\'s representing (in a negative fashion, but using realistic arguments) what the viewer believes. Often this trope just boils down to complaining about the show.
Another common problem is the straw-man not actually representing the point they\\\'re supposed to have. Take the very first example, advertising/Kleenex: the \\\"straw-man\\\" (reusable towel) is not making any point, let alone claiming itself to be environmentally sound. This was inserted entirely by the viewer.
I would suggest a name more like Villain Has a Point or Villain Looks Better Than Hero. In the case where \\\"the villain is making the best sense\\\" it could be called Willing Suspension of Rationality, but it\\\'s usually still not a true strawman.
A stereotypical or oversimplified argument is not \\\'\\\'\\\'not a strawman\\\'\\\'\\\' if people are actually using it. It doesn\\\'t matter whether the argument is presented as bad or not -- that\\\'s a moral presumption or an assumption that the audience is on the same political/philosophical plank the author is. It seems this effect happens mostly when the author isn\\\'t using a straw-man at all, but is just presuming audience agreement.
\\\"This trope is in play only when there is an actual Strawman involved, ie the argument is presented as completely wrong despite realistic arguments in the other direction.\\\"
Again, this is not a straw-man. A straw-man is a complete misrepresentation of the opponent\\\'s arguments. As the logical fallacy is about the context used in who, individually, you are arguing against, it\\\'s very hard if not impossible to have a straw-man that attacks everyone.
On a similar note, I most often see this invoked/discussed when a person watching the \\\"straw-man\\\" already agrees with the side being portrayed. In this case the villain doesn\\\'t even need to have a good point because he\\\'s representing (in a negative fashion, but using realistic arguments) what the viewer believes. Often this trope just boils down to complaining about the show.
Another common problem is the straw-man not actually representing the point they\\\'re supposed to have. Take the very first example, advertising/Kleenex: the \\\"straw-man\\\" (reusable towel) is not making any point, let alone claiming itself to be environmentally sound. This was inserted entirely by the viewer.
I would suggest a name more like Villain Has a Point or Villain Looks Better Than Hero. In the case where \\\"the villain is making the best sense\\\" it could be called Willing Suspension of Rationality, but it\\\'s usually still not a true strawman.
