Exception to the rule argument!

[things make sense]

When Stef published the video about "why you should not date a single mom", he talked about how the majority of single moms being dependent on the state whilst there being exceptions to the rule. I then read some YT comment which stated: "if you are the exception, there is no reason for you to get offended at what Stef said". When I read this, I nodded and agreed with utter certainty while pompously thinking "wow... any single moms who are the exceptions to the rule getting offended at this video is so irrational, I can't believe there are people like this out there".

 

Fast forward to today: I read an article here which said:

 

In the fallout since the first GOP debate, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes has found himself caught between Donald Trump, who has the full backing of Fox’s misogynist audience, and Megyn Kelly, the star anchor whom Ailes has nurtured and sees as the key to reaching younger viewers.

 

Now, after reading the "Fox's misogynist audience" part, I was triggered somehow and it may even offended me a little bit. I felt the need to defend myself you know? "misogynist" has a negative connotation and it felt like a threat of ostracism, creeping in the realm of dating and social integration.

 

I tried to apply the exception to the rule argument to this situation and realized that if I assume that the majority of Fox's audience are indeed mysogynists and I happened to be the exception, then there is no reason for me to get offended by this article.

 

Do you catch yourself having these moments?

I'm not sure what caused me to have this moment where I caught myself. But I'm sure there are people out there who never catch themselves and always react emotionally. While I'm against reducing standards for rationality (I think that if I can do it, anyone else can), the approach seems kind of unproductive. Hmm it seems like I'm starting to ramble so I will just stop now.

What do you guys think about this argument? Is it useful? helpful?

 

[WasatchMan]

Well I think there is a distinction to be made between Stef's arguments around single moms and the statement "Fox's misogynist audience".

 

The distinction is that I believe Stef's argument is based on statistics.  In statistics, there is an exception to the rule since the numbers generally follow a bell curve, and there is not the implication that if you are a single mom you are a bad person and your opinion doesn't matter - just that generally single moms have traits that are bad.

 

The "Fox's misogynist audience" is a smear that implies that you are misogynistic if you watch Fox - it is an attempt to poison the well and discount any criticism by implication without argument.  There is no statistical basis for Fox News's audience being misogynistic, no attempt to explain what is meant by misogynist, just a ad hominem attack on how the author personally views the Fox News audience.  It is just a sophist trick.

[things make sense]

Well I think there is a distinction to be made between Stef's arguments around single moms and the statement "Fox's misogynist audience".

 

The distinction is that I believe Stef's argument is based on statistics.  In statistics, there is an exception to the rule since the numbers generally follow a bell curve, and there is not the implication that if you are a single mom you are a bad person and your opinion doesn't matter - just that generally single moms have traits that are bad.

 

The "Fox's misogynist audience" is a smear that implies that you are misogynistic if you watch Fox - it is an attempt to poison the well and discount any criticism by implication without argument.  There is no statistical basis for Fox News's audience being misogynistic, no attempt to explain what is meant by misogynist, just a ad hominem attack on how the author personally views the Fox News audience.  It is just a sophist trick.

Hmm your post was illuminating.

I agree with the last part- poisoning the well.

Thanks.