"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)
The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
The most obvious type of name-calling involves bad names. For example, consider the following:
Commie
Fascist
Pig
Yuppie
Bum
Queer
Terrorist
Or in this case, Rapist-Molester
A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of negatively charged words include:
social engineering
radical
cowardly
counter-culture
The Institute first identified the name-calling technique for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.
What does the name mean?
Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?
(In this case it looks like the manipulation of a metaphor.)
Logic is the process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. A statement of fact, by itself, is neither logical nor illogical (although it can be true or false).
As an example of how logic can be abused, consider the following argument, which has been widely propagated on the Internet.
Premise 1: Hillary Clinton supports gun-control legislation.
Premise 2: All fascist regimes of the twentieth century have passed gun-control legislation.
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton is a fascist.
One way of testing the logic of an argument like this is to translate the basic terms and see if the conclusion still makes sense. As you can see, the premises may be correct, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
Premise 1: All Christians believe in God.
Premise 2: All Muslims believe in God.
Conclusion: All Christians are Muslims.
This is a rather extreme example of how logic can be abused. It should be noted that a message can be illogical without being propagandistic -- we all make logical mistakes. The difference is that propagandists deliberately manipulate logic in order to promote their cause, and this harms their credibility.
