BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 88% saturation with 760 hits. Analysis detected 2,896 faulty-reasoning hits from 864 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 89.2% and a BS Rank of 94% (1,367 of 20,249 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.30% of the article peer group.

It appears that members of Trump’s cabinet get chosen not despite their endorsements of violence, but because of them. 
Pete Hegseth was primarily known as a dapper TV host willing to defend war crimes. 
Markwayne Mullin is apparently still proud of challenging a witness to a fistfight at a Senate hearing; he also refuses to apologize for “understanding” an assault on fellow senator Rand Paul. 
Never before has an administration so openly glorified outright killing as the current White House propaganda machine does with its obscene snuff videos of the Iran war and the destruction of small boats. 
Unlike with fascism in the 20th century, there is no attempt to promote or symbolically reward self-sacrifice  it is just video game-style killing at a distance, justified not with strategic objectives, but with seemingly uncontrollable emotions (“fury” and a thirst for vengeance). 
And all accompanied by open admissions that basic laws of warfare will be broken. 
Actual soldiers with longstanding codes of honor, as opposed to the fantasy world Hegseth is creating with his cliche-ridden chatter on TV, would not punch enemies when they are down. 
Trump has never hidden his desire for domination and the related willingness to have his followers engage in violence, from the call to rough up people at his rallies to the pardons of even the most brutal January 6 insurrectionists. 
Hegseth and company are promoting an ultimately nihilist cult of death 
During his first administration, an “axis of adults” mostly held his worst impulses in check; after the Venezuela “excursion” and the realization that people on small boats can be killed with impunity, Hegseth, and perhaps even Rubio, seem drunk on the idea that special military operations could be quick and costless in American lives  and make for great TV. 
Trump’s fixation on visuals and props  if I show a pile of paper on TV, it means I really have divested from my companies, or I really have a great healthcare plan  is now shared across his administration. 
Trump himself appears to treat a global decapitation campaign as if it were a version of The Apprentice that includes firing live ammunition  as if he gets to remove other leaders, and as if he should get to choose the successors of whoever gets kidnapped or killed. 
Historically, there is an ideology that made the glorification of violence central to their propaganda. 
“Long live death” was a fascist slogan; Mussolini’s movement started with veterans and celebrated them as a “trenchocracy”  an aristocracy of men hardened by battle in the trenches. 
Gigantic ossuaries for the war dead  some holding the bones of as many as 100,000 dead soldiers  were meant to encourage future sacrifice; the Nazis in turn presented their youth with slogans like “We are born to die for Germany”. 
It seems that Hegseth and company are also promoting an ultimately nihilist cult of death. 
But it celebrates killing by pressing a button thousands of miles away; meanwhile, America’s own dead are dishonored, as Trump has used their repatriation to display his Maga merch and fundraise off the victims of war. 
Simultaneously, faithful to his master’s desire for total domination and destruction, Hegseth announces future war crimes on live TV (“no quarter”) and encourages gratuitous cruelty: “We are punching them while they’re down.” 
The obscene focus on “lethality” is part of this shift towards war understood as inflicting maximum destruction and pain (as opposed to achieving strategic objectives  which the administration has of course been utterly incapable of articulating). 
The reality of war itself recedes because the airwaves are filled with an endless series of entertaining images and empty talk. 
Hegseth, fond of laughably overwrought language and alliterations in particular (“warriors, not wokesters”), seems unable to articulate anything other than cliches (“unbreakable will”) or snippets of a Christian nationalism which flies in the face of the first amendment’s prohibiting an established religion: one cannot make it a litmus test of patriotism that citizens pray for the troops on bended knees and in the name of Jesus. 
The point is not to equate the two men, but one cannot help but remember how Hannah Arendt, in her highly controversial book on the Eichmann trial, described the Nazi bureaucrat: someone utterly incapable of thinking, someone who instead just produced an endless stream of hollow phrases. 
Will all this have an effect in legitimizing an illegal war? 
Hegseth has also created a fantasy world inside the Pentagon itself; instead of press conferences with critical questions and genuine answers, there is gentle back-and-forth between “the secretary of war”  a fantasy name, as Congress has not authorized changing the department’s name  and figures from the Epoch Times and LindellTV (the world according to “the MyPillow guy”). 
Even with this extra layer of insulation from reality, Hegseth insisted that the press was not being positive enough about US attacks on Iran. 
Like with many Maga men performing puerile stunts for the manosphere, the fragile ego inside seems incapable of facing up to the reality of what has been unleashed so thoughtlessly. 
Jan-Werner Mueller is a Guardian US columnist 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Jan-Werner Müller: 16.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 3.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 42.2%Jan-Werner Müller: 15.0%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect42.2%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 3.5%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Jan-Werner Müller: 22.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Jan-Werner Müller: 4.3%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error17.6%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Jan-Werner Müller: 2.7%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 3.5%Jan-Werner Müller: 6.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Jan-Werner Müller: 4.8%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 55.9%Jan-Werner Müller: 20.5%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem55.9%This article: 7.6%Jan-Werner Müller: 7.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man7.6%This article: 5.4%Jan-Werner Müller: 4.1%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 3.5%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 5.9%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.3%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.3%This article: 19.2%Jan-Werner Müller: 20.4%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization19.2%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 33.4%Jan-Werner Müller: 19.8%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion33.4%This article: 1.3%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.8%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.7%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.6%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.5%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.5%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 19.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 3.9%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy19.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 88.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 56.3%the Guardian: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice88.0%This article: 1.3%Jan-Werner Müller: 4.2%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 6.7%Jan-Werner Müller: 30.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jan-Werner Müller: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

864 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.