"Nobody is Saying That," "That's Not The Point," "You're Nutpicking" and "That's a Strawman."

Aren't they/ Isn't it/ Am I/ Is it, though?" (A rant)

Photo by James Park on Unsplash

(Audio version here)

It is common, in political debates, to hear people respond “Nobody is saying that!” This can be quite baffling because it is so often said in response to someone addressing something that people are, quite clearly, saying. What it usually means is something more like: “None of the people in my group whom I approve of are saying that, and I feel like you are attacking my group.”

Most recently, I saw a man claim that nobody is saying it is a moral problem when women do not have children until their thirties to a woman responding to precisely that discourse. I’ve seen people insist that ‘nobody is saying all white people are racist’ to people objecting to diversity training explicitly based on the thesis of Robin DiAngelo that all white people are racist. I’ve had gender critical feminists insist that “nobody is saying that men should not be allowed to wear dresses’ even though I was clearly responding to a deluge of people saying precisely that.

This is, I suspect, another manifestation of a broader problem: people speaking into tribal narratives, vibes, and themes rather than addressing specific arguments and principles. It is an attempt to reclaim the narrative from the more extreme or indefensible views within one’s own side and towards a more reasonable version. In effect, “Nobody is saying that” means “Don’t look at those people who are saying that. Look at me saying this more reasonable thing.”

Sometimes this is a conscious rhetorical move—a version of the motte and bailey, where a more radical claim retreats to a more defensible one when challenged. More often, I think, it reflects a discomfort with the existence of those more extreme views, combined with a reluctance to acknowledge them openly. It is easier to minimise or deflect than to say, “Yes, some people who broadly share my values do say that, and they are wrong.”

Another variation of this is “That’s not the point” or “You are missing the point” when someone is clearly addressing a specific point that they themselves have raised and set out clearly. I have typically responded to people doing this in the comments of one of my pieces or threads that I am the person who wrote it and consequently, I know what the point of it was. If they want to raise a different point, they should make that clear or perhaps even write their own piece or start a separate thread.

What “That’s not the point!” often means is: “I don’t want you to focus on that point. It is weak, inconvenient, or difficult to defend. I would prefer to move the discussion onto stronger ground.” This, again, is much easier than saying the honest thing, “Yes, that argument does not really work even on its own terms. We’d be better off abandoning it.”

At root, this is an attempt to minimise or gloss over the most extreme or indefensible views on one’s own side and, rather than correctly directing one’s annoyance at the members of one’s own tribe who are creating them, instead aiming them at the people noticing them. This is, I think, a very strong tribal instinct.

This became very clear to me when I was addressing problems with Critical Social Justice (woke) scholarship in accusations of ‘nutpicking’ that work in the same way. I was frequently told that I was unfairly selecting only irrational and illiberal examples to criticise rather than better scholarship. But my focus on those examples was deliberate. I think irrationalism and illiberalism are the problem. I do not criticise good, rigorous work addressing racism or sexism because I think it is good. I support it.

The same pattern appears on the right. When I criticise ethnonationalists or Christian nationalists, I am sometimes asked why I pick on the extreme positions and do not instead address more thoughtful arguments about cultural compatibility or the challenges posed by illiberal interpretations of Islam. The answer is the same: I think those more principled, well-reasoned and evidenced arguments are sound. Why would I criticise them?

In both cases, the assumption is that criticism of the worst arguments on one side must be an attempt to claim they represent the entire group and thus discredit it. That assumption itself is a projection of tribal thinking. If one’s own critique of one’s most illiberal and irrational political opponents genuinely is nutpicking rather than a good faith engagement with specific bad ideas, it is natural to assume that anybody criticising any element of one’s own side must be doing the same.

Ultimately, all of these responses reflect a commitment to tribal narratives over engaging with specific arguments and consistent principles. It is not necessarily that people doing this secretly agree with illiberal or irrational ideas on their own side or don’t see the problem with them, but that their understanding of solidarity and effective organised action requires not drawing attention to them and instead minimising them while pointing out the illiberal and irrational ideas on the other side.

I believe this attitude to be both very natural and a fatal mistake. When people prioritise defending their side’s overall narrative, they become less willing to acknowledge its weaknesses and more inclined to attack those who do. The result is increased polarisation. Each side constructs its own narrative out of its strongest arguments while constructing a counter-narrative of their opponents out of their weakest arguments. Over time, this makes it harder to see one another clearly at all and self-correction becomes all but impossible. This tribalistic tendency may have served us well in some other context in our evolutionary history, but it certainly does not do so now.

The same kind of confusion arises around spurious accusations of “straw manning.” It is correct to accuse someone of making a straw man when they misrepresent a position in order to attack an easier target. But it is not a straw man to respond directly to an extreme, unreasonable, or unethical argument that someone has actually made. There is no obligation to improve a bad argument before criticising it.

The thing not to do when people are criticising the worst arguments made and least ethical stances taken by people on your own side is become angry with them for noticing that and accurately pointing out the problems with it and insist that they instead address your best and most defensible arguments.

Instead, go to the people on your own side making the extreme, ridiculous, fallacious, blatantly unethical or otherwise easily refuted arguments and say something like, “No. What are you doing? Stop that. This is not reasonable, principled and grounded in reality, is it? Come on, now. I share your overall aims and am sympathetic to your frustration and the sense of urgency that is making you want to go full ‘scorched earth’ here. But you’re turning a strong and principled position which can be convincing to ethical and reasonable people into one that is neither and won’t be.”

Ideally, say this privately if you can and try to help that individual who is going off the rails to get back on them again. If this is not a possibility or it fails, say it publicly and address the problems with the stance being taken by people on your own side in detail and with clarity and consistent principle. This is how political sides and movements self-correct and self-regulate and become the strongest, most ethical and most persuasive versions of themselves. This is always going to be more effective than ignoring internal problems and then getting angry with political opponents for noticing them.

If you find yourself getting angry and frustrated with someone for accurately criticising a position actually being taken by people on your own side, stop and ask yourself if you have ever acknowledged and addressed those problems yourself.

If you have, you are in a good position to say, “Yes, I agree with you that this stance is indefensible. It is one I do not hold and am actively countering. Can we now discuss the position I do hold and am setting out here? I’d be interested to know if you have objections to that.”

If you have not addressed these problems, your anger at your political opponent for observing one and accurately spelling out why it is a problem is misplaced. That was your job and if enough people on your side had done it, you could have fixed it by now and not have to be dealing with your political opponents doing it for you.

If we can resist this impulse to build narratives that function as public relations for our own side while casting our opponents in the worst possible light, we might have a chance. That would mean engaging in good faith with the best arguments from those with whom we disagree, as they really are, and addressing the worst arguments on our own side honestly and transparently in order to self-correct and become better. We might even create a political system in which both sides are incentivised to be honest, accountable, and consistently principled, rather than one in which the average reasonable, ethical person is left trying to work out which is the lesser of two evils.

We can but dream.

---

The Overflowings of a Liberal Brain has over 6000 readers! We are creating a space for liberals who care about what is true on the left, right and centre to come together and talk about how to understand and navigate our current cultural moment with effectiveness and principled consistency.

I think it is important that I keep my writing free. It is paying subscribers who allow me to spend my time writing and keep that writing available to everyone. Currently 3.8% of my readers are paying subscribers. My goal for 2026 is to increase that to 7%. This would enable me to write full-time for my own substack! If you can afford to become a paying subscriber and want to help me do that, thank you! Otherwise, please share!