BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Genetic Fallacy, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 376 faulty-reasoning hits from 244 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.2% and a BS Rank of 62% (9,909 of 25,728 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

The Postcolonial Volk 
By Benjamin Zachariah 
Polity, 176 pages, $25 
You might have noticed that at some point, progressive types began to use the term “folks” to refer to “people.” 
There are black folks, queer folks, indigenous folks. 
The change is significant. 
Whereas “people” evokes a sense of a universal subject, “folks” is particular. 
It implies a world of distinctions: different cultures, different experiences, different interests. 
No people, just “peoples,” all speaking with a different voice. 
From this perspective, “The political world is a pluriverse, not a universe.” 
While the idea of a pluriverse has become increasingly popular within decolonial thought, that last line didn’t come from the tradition’s ever-proliferating ranks of academic adherents. 
It came from Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist. 
At a time when everything is “literally Hitler,” the comparison can seem overwrought. 
But it is precisely the comparison between post-colonial particularism and the völkisch right that Benjamin Zachariah reveals with a keen sense of the absurd in his new book, The Postcolonial Volk . 
“It’s not really from the Global South at all.” 
Zachariah critiques the “conglomerate” of postcolonial and decolonial theory clustering around what’s come to be known as “theory from the Global South.” 
But appearances are deceiving, because it’s not really from the Global South at all. 
As Zachariah describes, its language and legitimacy claims are crafted in the Global North, exported to the Global South, and then reimported as authentic non-Western knowledge. 
Confirmation Bias
16.4%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
4.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
23.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
3.7%
Negativity Bias
14.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
13.1%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
3.3%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
5.7%
Red Herring
5.3%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
4.9%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
9.4%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
4.9%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
4.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
13.9%
Unattributed Quote
3.7%
Quote-first Misdirection
3.7%
Biased Writer Voice
10.7%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
1.6%

244 words analyzed.

Analysis

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