“Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;

“Tis your own dirty image you see”;

For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –

That your blackness is mirrored in me.”

– Anonymous

Argument by projection is when someone makes a point, but is actually against it. This is usually done as a cover so that their argument seems more rational, and their opponent’s argument irrational. I would like to refine this term and distance it from existing ones. Firstly, it is less personal than just being hypocritical, normally projecting, or “pot meet kettle” / “do what I say not what I do” / “it’s okay when we do it”. Argument by projection is meant to be used on entire groups or ideologies. Now, it is of course difficult to gauge what qualifies “an entire group” to be guilty of this. One method is to check if the statement is agreed upon by the majority of people inside the ideology. Another would be if top “experts in the field” or other respected figures agree with the conflicting statements. The closest synonym would be “doublethink”, but argument by projection is meant to be used as a way to discredit another group or bolster one’s own claims.

One of the major examples of this appears in 3rd wave feminism, and the free speech vs. hate speech debate. One of the hot arguments right now is “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”. This is an argument that is easy to agree with. However, what do top feminists do? They disable comments on their videos and articles (Salon, The Guardian, Anita Sarkeesian etc). They use block lists to pre-block people on Twitter (GGAutoBlocker). When finally it is unavoidable, they call any criticism harassment. It is then obvious to see that they, in fact, wish to have freedom from consequences.

Another recent example is when the anti-Trump crowd says that “Trump is a threat to democracy in this country”. Who is saying or agreeing with this? Extremist leftist groups such as MoveOn and La Raza. These groups wish to intimidate us from voting for Trump. Another group is the GOP members who are hoping for a brokered convention. They wish to take control over the people’s vote and nominate whoever they want. This is directly a large threat to our democracy. In general it is also an issue. These people are basically saying “We know Trump is leading right now and is who you are voting for, but you shouldn’t vote for him because he won’t win anyway. (or some other fallacious reason)” This is not to say convincing someone to vote for someone else is wrong. However, the anti-Trump groups tend to do it fallaciously and maliciously. For example, the new meme of calling Trump a racist or comparing him to Hitler. When asked to explain, one only receives non-arguments. Whether or not a democratic government can take away the popular vote from a candidate for certain reasons is a debate left for another time.