Thinking About Hate
The video starts with a title card: “Thinking About Hate”. The narrator begins by welcoming the viewer and explaining that the lesson will focus on identifying hate content disguised as reasonable debate.
The scene then shifts to a visually striking image of space, with ‘Oumuamua highlighted as a finger-shaped object passing through our solar system. The foreground image is credited to the European Southern Observatory/M. Kornmesser, and the background image to Buwaneka Saranga. The narrator introduces the intriguing possibility that some astronomers believe it could be an alien spaceship or part of a broken one. A slide appears listing the reasons behind this speculation, such as its unusual shape, unexplained path, acceleration, lack of a comet tail despite moving like one, record-breaking speed, and dramatic increase in brightness upon rotation. The video pauses here, encouraging viewers to consider their own thoughts.
Next, the video presents another slide with further information about ‘Oumuamua. The narrator explains that many asteroids and moons have unusual shapes, not all comets have tails, there are many potential explanations for its speed and orbit, and smooth rocks can be highly reflective. Crucially, the narrator emphasizes that almost no astronomers believe it’s an alien spaceship. The video highlights that the main astronomer who suggests an alien origin is involved in a project promoting interstellar spaceships. The video then replays the initial list of reasons for the alien hypothesis, prompting the viewer to reconsider their opinion and asking if the initial presentation of evidence felt fair and honest.
The video then transitions to a section titled “Dishonest Arguments”. The narrator clarifies that the ‘Oumuamua example was used to illustrate a dishonest argument, one that can be convincing by presenting true facts in a way that distorts the overall strength of the argument by omitting other relevant information.
A new slide appears outlining “Three kinds of dishonest arguments”: those dishonest about the facts, the issue, and the arguer. Each category is then explored in detail on subsequent slides.
Under “Arguments that are dishonest about the facts”, the video explains the “Cherrypicking Argument”. An example is shown: a cartoon image of a box of “House Hipp-Os” cereal, possibly with nutritional information highlighting vitamins and minerals. The accompanying text reads: “House Hipp-Os are the perfect breakfast. It has a dozen vitamins and minerals”. The narrator explains that this argument is dishonest because it only presents facts supporting one side, omitting potentially negative aspects like high sugar content.
The “Iceberg Argument” is then presented with a slide containing the statement: “Five restaurant workers were caught not washing their hands this year. When you add all the ones they didn’t catch, we can see this is a big problem”. Below this text is an image credited to Pixnio, likely depicting the tip of an iceberg with a much larger, unseen portion underwater, visually representing the idea of hidden evidence. The narrator explains that this argument wrongly assumes a large amount of unreported evidence without a valid reason.
Finally, the “Naming-Framing Argument” is illustrated with the example: “We need to do something about raccoons. If you don’t believe me, Google ‘trash panda’ and ‘garbage can’”. The slide features an image of raccoons in garbage cans. The narrator clarifies that using loaded terms like “trash panda” frames the issue negatively and encourages searches that will likely reinforce a biased viewpoint, advising viewers to use neutral terms instead.
The video moves to “Arguments that are dishonest about the issue”, starting with the “Fake Doubt Argument”. The statement “Whether or not the town of Flin Flon exists is still under debate. Not every map has Flin Flon on it” appears. The narrator explains that this argument pretends there isn’t a consensus when there is, using a minor piece of contradictory evidence to undermine a widely accepted fact. Questions to consider when encountering this argument are presented. The video then shows a statue credited as being of Flintabbatey Flonatin, a character the town of Flin Flon was named after.
The “Fake Choice Argument” is then shown with the statement: “Some maps say Flin Flon is in Manitoba, but others say it’s in Saskatchewan. That shows that it doesn’t really exist”. Below this is an image credited to Wikimedia Commons, showing two different maps with Flin Flon located in different provinces. The narrator explains that this argument falsely presents only two possibilities when more exist, using contradictory information to deny a reality. Another image, also credited to Wikimedia Commons, then appears, a map clearly showing that the border between Manitoba and Saskatchewan runs directly through the town of Flin Flon.
The final example in this section is the “Straw Man Argument”: “It’s absurd to argue that raccoons shouldn’t vote because they couldn’t fill out the ballots. Their little paws can handle a pencil just as well as we can”. The slide features a cartoon image of a raccoon attempting to hold a pencil and fill out a ballot. The narrator clarifies that this argument misrepresents the opposing view by arguing against a point that is not actually being made.
The last category is “Arguments that are dishonest about the arguer”, starting with the “Just Asking Questions’ Argument”. A seemingly honest example is given: “My brother’s restaurant is the best in town”. The narrator points out the obvious bias in this statement. It’s explained that often, this bias is hidden and requires investigation to uncover.
The “Persecuted Genius Argument” is illustrated with: “No one will publish my theory that Flin Flon was only put on maps as a message to aliens. They’re afraid I’m getting too close!”. An image credited to DALL-E appears, showing Gali. The “Moving Target Argument” is shown through a dialogue: A: “We shouldn’t let women be firefighters.” B: “What? That’s sexist.” A: “I don’t mean no women should be firefighters, but we should make everyone show they’re strong enough for the job”. The slide shows a visual representation of this exchange, perhaps with speech bubbles or different characters labeled “A” and “B,” alongside an image credited to Wikimedia Commons, possibly depicting firefighters. The narrator explains how this involves shifting from an extreme argument to a more reasonable one while pretending that was the original point.
The video then connects these dishonest arguments to hate groups and movements, explaining that they use them to spread fear and hatred. It highlights how these arguments can fool people, make the group seem more reasonable, waste others’ time, and lead to greater involvement. The concept of “dogwhistling” is introduced.
The video proceeds to show examples of these dishonest arguments used by real hate groups, with a disclaimer that these are for educational purposes only and do not represent the views of MediaSmarts.
One example shows a fake ad against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. The slide displays the fake ad, likely with text attributed to a fictional user named “Alisha,” making a seemingly concerned statement about Hillary Clinton’s supposed support for drafting women. This is identified as a straw man argument by falsely suggesting she supported drafting women into the military. It is also identified as a “just asking questions” argument due to the suspicious nature of the poster’s account.
Another example is a chart showing the rate of violent crime between races in the U.S.. The slide displays the graphic with highlighted data showing the relatively low amount of violent crime committed by White people against Black people. This is identified as cherrypicking because it omits crucial information. It is also described as a straw man argument because the primary concern regarding racial violence is often the killing of Black people by police. The narrator emphasizes the dangerous consequences of not recognizing such dishonest arguments.
The final example is a meme claiming that Irish people were “the first slaves brought to America”. The slide displays the meme, likely with bold text making this claim and possibly including imagery intended to evoke sympathy or historical injustice. This is identified as naming/framing by equating indentured servitude with the chattel slavery of Black people. It is also an example of “just asking questions” as these claims often attempt to minimize the reality and long-term consequences of African slavery.
The video concludes by reiterating that while hate groups are not the only ones who use dishonest arguments, it is particularly dangerous when they do. It emphasizes how these arguments are used to normalize hateful ideas and deny ongoing inequalities. The narrator ends on a hopeful note, stating that now that viewers can recognize these dishonest tactics, they will likely see them more often and know what questions to ask.
Finally, a slide appears with the title “DISHONEST DEBATE”, providing a list of topics such as “Cats are better than dogs” and “Aliens are living among us”. The instruction is for viewers to write a paragraph using three different dishonest arguments they have learned about. The purpose of this exercise is to practice identifying these arguments when used by others. It reminds viewers of the three categories of dishonest arguments and their examples.