BZL 2 – Deceptive labeling, a/k/a “The Curve Ball”. Just as 1 is a fastball when the catcher signals the pitcher, 2 is usually a curveball. The curveball for our purposes is using a word, but distorting its meaning. In its crassest form the BZL 2 is simply name calling as a short cut to avoid making an argument, but it also includes more subtle forms of rhetorical trickery.
One popular form of BZL 2 is the Argument by Adjective. So, Barry Goldwater’s positions were branded as “right-wing”, which gave people permission to disregard them regardless of their merit. The word “Socialist” is used in the same way. Label an idea as “right-wing” or “socialist” and you don’t have to actually discuss the merits.
An extreme form is the ever-popular Reductio ad Hitlerum – if it is the sort of thing Hitler did, it can’t be good. “Obama” became another charged term, used the same way. Rush Limbaugh was complaining about the “Obama recession” before Obama had even taken office. Numerous conservative (or should I say “right-wing”) commentators were using the term “Obamacare” at a time when five Health Care bills were pending before Congress, and Obama had not endorsed any of them. Once again, the goal is to avoid having to discuss the merits of the Affordable Care Act by putting a negative label on it.
But the BZL 2 category goes beyond just name-calling and includes all of the ways in which the meaning of words is distorted. For example, policies are labeled as “socialism” have nothing to do with the government owning the means of production, which is what socialism actually means. But calling someone a “Social Democrat” does not have the same jolt.
Similar things have happened to the words “liberal” and “conservative.” “Liberal” has be come a synonym for “socialist”, and so-called conservatives are advocating policies that could, in no way be considered conservative according to the dictionary definition – tending to preserve the status quo, and to avoid risk. BZL 2 is in many ways the most insidious of the fallacies because if words don’t have clear meanings, it becomes impossible to communicate, let alone have cogent arguments.
There are several approaches to use when facing a BZL 2. If the word is being misused, go back to the dictionary definition, and clarify. “Are you saying that Barack Obama believes that the government should own the means of production?” If it is just a matter of name-calling, ask the other person to restate their position without the pejorative terms, and to continue the discussion on the merits.
BZL 3 – Vagueness, a/k/a “Them”. In this argument the point is to be vague so that people cannot tell exactly what you are talking about. Whenever someone starts referring to what “they” do or how “they” feel or the problems with “those people”, be on the lookout for a BZL 3. The lack of precision is an invitation to fill the gap with assumptions or, worse, bigotry.
Conspiracy theories thrive on vagueness. So people talk about the “Deep State” without being at all clear who is supposedly in charge, and what they are doing.
The antidote to BZL 3 is to ask the speaker to be more specific, to use nouns, even names, instead of pronouns. For example: “Who are the people who are running the Deep State? What actions do you think that the Deep State took to control this election?”
BZL 4 – Appeals to emotion. (mnemonic – four = fear). We have seen many appeals to fear in recent election cycles, particularly appeals to fear of black people, of immigrants, and of Muslims.
One approach is to confront the issue directly and ask “I understand that you are afraid of Muslims, but why should I be?” The idea is try to have the other person explain why their fear is rational, and not just a product of emotion. And then secondly, why you should have the same rational concerns that they do.
BZL 5 – Changing the subject (mnemonic – rhymes with jive). With this argument, the proponent changes the subject or otherwise avoids a real argument by focusing on something irrelevant to the point at issue. One form this argument takes is the “straw man”, in which you distort the opponent’s position by making it weaker or more extreme, and they argue against that.
The argument from hypocrisy, or Tu Quoque argument can also be seen as a form of BZL 5. The fact that you failed to act in accordance with the standard you are attempting to set does not show that there is anything wrong with the standard.
Signalling BZL 5 by holding your hand out with all fingers up, also says “Hold on a minute”. You signal to the speaker that they have gotten off track to the point where you are no longer following them. To resume the argument, you need to go back to the point where the speaker got off track, and continue from there.
BZL 6 – Listen to the expert. With BZL 6, the speaker stops making arguments, and relies on a third-party statement as proof, rather than facts or logic. This shortcut is often used by debaters, but if the authority is cited for conclusions and not just facts, the argument is faulty. At the very least we need to know what facts the authority relied upon, and what logic it used.
We also need to know if the expert is biased. Pronouncements from a person or institution with a known slant require that we scrutinize their conclusions, and even their factual assertions.
When someone makes an appeal to authority, have them break out the argument that the expert made, and test each step of the expert’s argument the same as if the speaker was making the argument.
BZL 7 – Hell or Heaven.. This fallacy involves the what is called “the excluded middle.” It sets up a false dichotomy or false dilemma or a false choice. Either you are with us or you are against us. If you support gun control, you want to take away everyone’s guns.
BZL 7 commonly shows up as the assumption that you can prove yourself right by showing that someone else is wrong. For example: because the hockey stick chart for global warming is wrong, there is no need to be worried about climate change.
To counter BZL 7, point out examples that don’t fit into either of the two categories offered, or ask whether both could be wrong.
BZL 8 – Pretend it’s straight. The essence of this argument is to pretend that the situation is simpler than it actually is. It has been referred to as the fallacy of the single cause, or the reductive fallacy. So, one might say taxation is theft. Or you might argue that cutting taxes increases revenues. Well, there may be some instances where this occurs, but we have also seen tax cuts lead to serious deficits. The attraction of this argument is that we all want things to be simple. In this argument the proponents simply giving people what they like. When it is combined with name-calling it can be quite effective, however fallacious.
A BZL 8 is an appeal to the simpleton in all of us, to the mob. Understand that this is not a comment on anyone’s intelligence. A Wall Street bond trader maybe a simpleton when it comes to car mechanics. To some extent we are all simpletons because we are busy — we suffer from information overload, and we want things to be simple. We need things to be simple to deal with the complexity of life. We need to remind ourselves that the map is not the territory, even when it is our own map.
Conspiracy theories often rely on a particular form of BZL 8, “illusory pattern recognition”, a cognitive error in which our critical ability to perceive patterns (the lion hiding in the tall grass) causes us to see connections when none really exist. Fear is often at the core of conspiracy theories, so the fear might have be addressed at the outset. See BZL 4 above.
When confronted with a BZL 8, it helps to have the person sketch out the entire argument, so that gaps in the argument stand out more clearly. Then use the other tools of critical thinking to address the gaps. It may help to point out areas where the map being suggested account for things that the speaker can agree are important parts of the territory.
BZL 9. Personal attacks. This bad argument is based on personal attacks on the other side, so that the goal is not to argue based on facts and logic, but to bully or intimidate. One classic form is the ad hominem argument.
Personal attacks come in two flavors. They can be a sign that the argument is over, and the speaker is indulging in self-soothing behavior, that has nothing to do with facts or logic or persuasion. In this case, the personal attack is a form of BZL 10. In which case nothing can be done.
But sometimes, the speaker is making a gratuitous insult to spike the football, or to boost their own confidence, without giving up on the argument. This can take the form of eye-rolling, sarcasm, or other forms of dismissive behavior. In this case, the remedy is to separate the emotions from the argument, and to confront the bully by calling out the behavior. Remind the person that arguments are about facts and logic, and confirm that they are willing to play by the rules. In appropriate cases, demand an apology, or describe how the attack made you feel. In any case, don’t let the personal attack go unchallenged. If the argument is worth having, you have to deal with the emotions, and get back to the discussion.
BZL 10 – Turn the volume up to 10. The essence of this approach – it can’t really be called an argument — is to try to talk over, or shout down the other person. Another version of BZL 10 is propaganda, loud repetition of a message regardless of its truth. Essentially, the speaker has stopped trying to convince anyone, and is reeling off talking points.
The sign for BZL 10 – holding up both hands in a stop signal — suggests “you might as well stop talking because I have stopped listening.”
Overview – The point of the BZL system is to identify common fallacies, so that they can be more easily recognized. Sometimes an argument has more than one, and sometimes the categories overlap. But the point is really to use the system while you are in discussion with someone, or while you are watching the news, or reading the paper or a book. You should find yourself becoming more aware of the Jedi mind tricks that are being played on you constantly, and thereby better able to keep thinking clearly. When you are in a discussion, unless you have agreed in advance to share the signals with others, you are better off keeping them to yourself. But it still may be useful flash them to yourself under the table, or by your side, to reinforce the recognition. Showing BZL 1, BZL 5 and BZL 10 to the speaker should not be a problem; we already use them all the time to tell a speaker to slow down or stop.
It can be hard to use the system on the fly at first. But here are a couple suggestions that make it easier to start. You could start with review of a single sentence from the day’s news that catches your attention, perhaps the headline of a newspaper article, or lead line to a television broadcast. You can move on to written arguments, newspaper articles, or transcripts of statements by your favorite (or least favorite) pundit. That makes it easier for you to slow the argument down, to spot the problems.
For live broadcasts, or in-person discussions, you might use a simplified version of the signals, limiting yourself to BZL 1, BZL 5, and BZL 10, and using other signals as they come to you. It would work like this:
Throw up a BZL 1 when you feel the speaker is going too fast for you to follow. BZL 1 says “Hold on a second.” In a live conversation, ask the person to slow down, or to repeat what they just said. For audio or video, pause the recording, and rewind. Or re-read the last point for a written argument. Consider why you stopped following the flow of the argument – did the speaker make an assumption you don’t agree with (BZL 1), use a word in a distorted (BZL 2) or vague (BZL 3) way? Are they appealing to fear (BZL 4) or asking you to unquestioningly accept an expert’s conclusion (BZL 6)? Even if you can’t immediately identify the cause of the discomfort, note that you have questions about the argument by flashing a BZL 1.
BZL 5 signals not just questions about the argument, but a feeling that the speaker is off track. It says, “wait a minute” like a traffic cop holding up one hand. It may take a little digging to understand why you think the speaker has lost the thread. The problem may be more complex than misuse of a word, and might involve a problem with the logic of the argument. Is there undue reliance on an expert (BZL 6), a false dichotomy (BZL 7) or an oversimplification of the facts (BZL 8)? Each of these problems may take a little more time to unpack, but slow down and give the other person a chance to explain. They may be able to help you back into the thread. Or you may be able to help them see where their argument got off track, and help them get back on course.
BZL 10, holding up both hands, calls for a full stop. It says: “As far as I am concerned, the argument is over. Talking any more with you is a waste of my time.” Use it only as a last resort, when it is clear that the speaker has, in fact, stopped trying to persuade and does not care what you think.
