No, that’s fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.
Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.
I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you’re right in calling out the illogical BS. I’m just saying I think it’s this particular flavour of illogical BS.
I’m sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask “if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?”
No, that’s fallacious in two ways: equivocation and appeal to emotion. Neutrality is not defined by upsetting both sides equally, because that means one side could shift the definition of neutral in their favor by being (or pretending to be) more upset.
Actual neutrality requires objectivity and calling out crocodile tears based on exaggerations (or even wholly imaginary issues, for that matter) as what they are.
Neutrality is not truth
I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you’re right in calling out the illogical BS. I’m just saying I think it’s this particular flavour of illogical BS.
I’m sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask “if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?”