- a fallacious argument.
Example: During an interview with Jonathan Capehart, Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union (the group that runs CPAC, the right’s yearly white power rally), made the incredibly persuasive argument that Breitbart.com is not racist because he says so. No, seriously! Capehart even made a cute little meme of it:
If you’ve paid ANY attention to Breitbart and its former Grand Dragon, Steve Bannon, you know for a fact that Breitbart’s entire function is to promote the white nationalist agenda of the “alt-right” (AKA “rebranded white nationalism“). For fuck’s sake, they have a category for “black crime” on the site, but not “white crime” because that’s not racist at all, right?
Steve Bannon explicitly said that Breitbart is the online destination for the white nationalist “alt-right” so it seems impossible to deny the inherent racism of the site. But you’re forgetting the conservative ability to rewrite the English language to suit their needs:
And once again, when Steve Bannnon brought up that topic, he wasn’t trying to endorse the racist ideology of that group, it was a term that he had a different definition for.
Got that? Breitbart isn’t racist because even though they appeal explicitly to the undeniably racist “alt-right,” they have their own definition of what “alt-right” means so it’s all good. In the same vein, I’d like to announce that Left Wing Nation will henceforth be the go-to site for the KKK and neo-Nazis but since my definition of those groups is “Cuddly fun-loving liberals,” you don’t have to worry about all of the hardcore white supremacy you’ll be seeing here.
That’s how it works, right?
A more reasonable interpretation of Schlapp’s pronouncement is that he’s a lying piece of shit that knows goddamn well he’s a fucking racist and that his little cult has finally embraced open white nationalism instead of hiding behind coded dog whistles.
Which narrative do you find more likely?