By now every knows about the Julian Assange sex crimes case, and despite having surprisingly few facts on the matter, everyone has already decided for themselves whether he is guilty, innocent, a terrible rapist, or a poor victim at the hands of some evil feminists.
The facts are these-
Julian Assange is the spokesperson and editor in chief of Wikileaks, a website that publishes [leaks] information that is mostly confidential from anonymous submissions.
Julian Assange has been accused of sexual abuse against two separate women. He's denied the allegations.
The allegations came back in August, with one woman accusing him of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, and the other accusing him of rape. They both said that they had engaged in consensual sex at different times, but each had a separate occasion where it was nonconsensual, and they went to the police to see if they could make him get tested for STD's and to seek advice about their situations.
There was a warrant put out for him in August, but was quickly rescinded after the prosecutor decided it wasn't enough evidence to build a case against Assange. Since then another prosecutor has stepped in. He believed differently, and started building a case against Assange, which is why the warrant was put out again for his arrest.
These are all the facts.
Since this has become a huge issue over the past few weeks, the media has been all over it. There have been claims that it is an international conspiracy against him, that the accusers are linked to the US government, that they are merely jealous/jilted lovers, that he was seduced, that the condom broke/fell off and that not wearing a condom while engaging in consensual sex in Sweden is considered rape, that he is a rapist and that the public's reaction to this is exactly why rapists get away with their crimes...the list of assumptions goes on. I can't say whether any of these things are true or false [except for the condom law in Sweden, that's been proven false], and I have yet to really make any sort of decision on the matter, because I feel like that would be really ignorant. When a case is as prominent as this is, they withhold the details that are most important[usually]--to ensure that they can have a fair trial. I think it would really just be stupid to make judgments now, when we don't have all the details. However, that's not stopping The Guardian, The New York Times, The Australian, AOL News, Salon.com, Huffington Post, or any other news sources from making their decisions. So! I have decided to make a list of the fallacies that I can find here.
The fallacy that is most striking to me is the false dichotomy. Either Julian Assange is a terrible rapist with not an ounce of respect for women, or he's a christ-like martyr for the case of worldwide free information, and all the powerful countries in the world have set him up. You can see the same thing, only stronger, against the accusers--Either they are two evil feminists who have set up a "honey trap" to take down this man, or they are the poor victims, having to try and clear their names now that they have been dragged through the mud as false rape accusers. And then, depending on who is speaking about the issue, one of those options is crossed out, made to seem too ridiculous to be true--leaving only one option.
Either this is a case of powerful governments conspiring against one man whose only mission is to shed light on information that has been withheld from all of us, or the man is a terrorist who wants to bring harm to our countries, and it is only reasonable that he would also be a bad person in other areas of life, so he must be a rapist. It has been presented as black and white, either/or, he is the best of the best and untouchable or he is the worst of the worst and deserves to be executed.
In a case as important as this, you would think that we would withhold judgment until all the facts were put before us. Unfortunately, the media has so polarized the issue that we feel compelled to accept what is given to us and choose a side--and so far all that have been given to us are speculative theories and hearsay. We cannot expect to make a logical conclusion when so far we have yet to see any logical [or even indisputably factual] evidence.
Appeal to pity-This seems to be more on the side of those standing up for the accusers--
"Claes Borgström, the lawyer for the two women whose complaints of sexual assault triggered Julian Assange's arrest, said his clients had been assaulted twice: first physically, before being "sacrificed" to a malevolent online attack. The women were having "a very tough time", he said.
A wealth of hostile material attacking the two women has appeared on the internet since August, when they took their complaints to the police. Their right to anonymity has been abandoned online, where enraged bloggers have uploaded dossiers of personal photographs, raked through their CVs and tweets, and accused them of orchestrating a CIA-inspired honeytrap operation. These online rumours were a convenient way for Assange to divert suspicion from the actual allegations, the women's lawyer said."
From this site
It's easy to stir up pity, sympathy, and empathy, especially in a case that involves rape. Personally I am very easily swayed by this, and it's hard for me to NOT feel bad for the accusers. I don't want to let my opinion on this case be swayed by that, however. I think a lot of people feel that way, but they have taken it to the extreme and have shut themselves off from hearing any new information that may come into conflict with their previous mindsets.
Ad hominem, or "against the person" fallacy is the easiest fallacy to pick out in arguments and apparently it is really prominent in this case. I think it ties in with the false dichotomy fallacy, because here you can see exactly how extreme the polarization is. Here are some examples.
Against the accusers-
"some trite feminist rhetoric"
"All that work for social status so that one may enjoy the attention of women and then a dishonest woman can take your social status and destroy your life's work with one lie."
On withdrawn consent-"It's a relatively new trick in a woman's repertoire of manipulative techniques."
"this [is] the most egregious take-down of a credible man of high status by a disreputable woman of low status in a very long time."
All four quotes from this site
"Anna Ardin is a radical *all heterosexual sex is rape* lesbian feminist."
Comments from this site
"I mainly question this vapid transition from consensual coitus to “rape”. I bet there are female (actual) rape victims who feel injury that you use the word “rape” to describe this mid-coitus change-of-mind trick. (This trick appears in feminist literature as a means for revenge.)"
Comments from this site
"The problem here is not some theoretical abstraction about the nature of consent. No, the much larger problem apparent in this situation is that Swedish leftist women are atrocious sluts."
From this blog
And then there's this entire article, which provides such gems as--
"It appears that Anna Ardin,, the spurned lover of Julian Assange, has decided to grace her radical leftist feminazi presence upon the Palestinians."
"As you may recall, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, are the radical feminists who filed false rape charges against Assange based upon some condom related events. Perhaps here she will experience real rape, the dirty little secret the Palestinians sweep under the carpet"
Which is wrapped up by the blogger's detailing of the Palestinian "dirty little secret"--that [amazingly] rape happens there as well--and then he posits this insightful rhetorical question...
"wouldn't it be poetic justice if Ms. Ardin were to experience true Palestinian hospitality?"
How illuminating.
Ad Hominem against Assange-
"And the more it goes on, the more Assange loses his cool of an international man of mystery and begins to look like a normal techie with a website and a hard on…"
From this site
"Sometimes we like and admire people who are really just rapey douchebags or assholes who rape or hurt others out of expediency, entitlement, or what have you. The idea that Assange might be a rapey douchebag shouldn’t be confounding, and if he turns out to actually be a rapey douchebag, he’ll probably still retain some degree of popularity."
From this blog
“I think the man is a high-tech terrorist."
-Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
"I certainly have no interest in defending that disgusting scumbag."
From this blog, again
I think it's almost ridiculous to have to explain why an Ad Hominem attack is ridiculous/childish/illogical, but here goes anyways--It is ignorant. It shows a lack of intelligence, in my eyes, because instead of picking apart a person's argument, you are simply attacking them. To paint Assange as a "rapey douchebag" and the accusers as "atrocious sluts" is, in my eyes, to admit to everyone that you don't know a single thing about what you're trying to talk about. Thinking about the facts of the case [or realizing that not having all the facts means that you can't have a really well-formed opinion on the matter] is too difficult, or too boring, or not attention-grabbing enough, I don't know. If you can't write a post about the facts or even the "what-ifs" of this situation without trying to smear one party, you shouldn't be seen as an objective news source. And if you can't be seen as an objective news source, your writing is nothing but cheap entertainment. [Ad hominem alert]
And last, but definitely not least, red herring. Red herring is a fallacy that is meant to distract people from an important issue by placing all of the focus on a smaller, less important issue. Examples--
This is very important.
This is not important.
This is very important.
This is not as important.
This is very important.
This is not.
I have read more blogs about Wikileaks in the past few weeks than I have ever wanted to. And while I feel like it has made me a lot more informed than I would have been otherwise, I am pretty bothered by the fact that it has been so much easier to find out what the accusers in this case were wearing when they met Assange than it has been to find websites detailing the major cables that have been leaked. Is he guilty or innocent? Are the accusers linked to a CIA setup? Are they robots built by the Kremlin? I don't know. No one does. But that won't stop the articles from being published.
So as for my project, what role does logic or the lack thereof play in my everyday life? I've come to the conclusion that logic soothes me. When I read something that isn't riddled with fallacies and instead is rational and carefully thought out, it makes me feel a little bit more sane. When I read something that is full of gaps, childish attacks, faulty logic, and that substitutes facts and research with outlandish speculation--I feel like I am going crazy. More often than not it seems that the media focuses a lot more on sensationalized and trivial news than it does on making sense of things, and I think that's the problem. No one makes sense anymore. We come up with conclusions before we have almost any real knowledge on issues. I have many friends and family members who "hated" George Bush, or who now "hate" Barack Obama, but when you ask them why, they don't know. I hear that all the time. People just don't like things. They are not sure why. Because all we are given from our main news sources are attacks, or emotionally charged language, or things that play up a certain emotion in us, whether it be pity or fear or a desire to be part of a group--and those are very powerful things. And for all of this talk about wikileaks and wanting to know all the facts about everything, for all the talk about government transparency and how glorious that would be, we are so plagued by fallacies and faulty logic in our everyday lives to the point that it has taken the place of logical thought. What's the value in finding out all the facts when we don't know what to do with them anymore? Fallacious arguments in the media and among peers have become the norm. And although it is illogical of me to think that I can do anything about the mindset of my country, I would still like to try. One blog post at a time.
