Trump Derangement Syndrome
Woke, DEI, CRT, MSM - these goddamn acronyms the right throws around anytime they're confronted with, I don’t know, data and facts? I’ll be the first to admit, as I have in many personal circles, that I can be easily triggered by sheer incompetence or stupidity. The right, naturally, loves it when they get any reaction, so they can label myself and others as ‘deranged leftist Antifa operatives hellbent on destroying America!’. Whatever, sure buddy, you got me. These people get off on the engagement, for whatever reason, and we fall into an unwinnable conversation.
Either call them out like an educated adult—with counterpoints, facts, and sources, etc. or bash them into submission in a tone that resembles their own. We lose either way, the first allows MAGAs to deflect, deny, or shrug their shoulders with an emoji. The latter just reinforces the radical left image Fox News paints us all as, dismissing any evidence to the contrary. I have been in countless arguments with red hats where within the first few exchanges, they deflect from the topic of discussion and bring up Riley Grifter Gaines (the biggest loser), Laken Riley (who’s family is pissed), or Hunter Biden.
While I prefer a world in which we could publicly shame them, the majority of this happens online-- on social media -- where they can easily ignore, hide, and cherry pick their arguments. It would be awesome if we just started screenshotting DMs and posting them, although that would surely cause some family drama at the very least. “Why did you post that PRIVATE conversation between you and my husband?” I don’t know, maybe he shouldn’t be in my DMs proclaiming nonsense christian ‘values’, ignoring voting rights, or vilifying trans kids?
I swear if these social media red hat warriors were forced to defend their shit in person in front of an audience they would either A) explode or B) Do the Ashlee Simpson walk off. Fuck I’m getting old.
In any case, it’s helpful identifying rhetorical techniques conservatives use, often unknowingly, in their posts, claims, and arguments. By doing so, you can quickly call them on their bullshit and maybe provoke some form of critical thinking or self-analysis on their part. This is not a full list or defense mechanisms, but the ones I’ve encountered most commonly by the right.
Strawman Argument
Monkey Poo Shotgun (okay, it’s not the official term, but it's what I call “throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.”
Moving Goalposts
Emotional Appeals
False Equivalence
Red Herring
Denying the Premise
Playing the Victim (War on Christmas!)
Cherry Picking Data
Whataboutism
Chip away at the stupid, if you will. They will likely never admit it, change, or reconsider their line of thinking publicly—but they can’t ignore the confrontation itself. I know 99% of the time these assholes won’t think twice about it. But if we can reach even 1% at a time, we have to take that as a win. Now, I can all but guarantee if you call out redhats for using any of the above, they will deflect with a “I don’t care” or “It is what it is” or some other dismissive, defunct response. Regardless, it’s worth having examples on hand to serve up—should you choose to engage with a MAGA cult member.
Deflection Examples
Universal Healthcare
Original argument Logical:
"We need a public healthcare option so that everyone can afford basic medical services."MAGA response:
"Democrats just want the government to take over healthcare completely and force you to give up your doctor."
👉 Here, the strawman is the exaggerated claim that a public option automatically equals full government control.
On this issue, you’ve probably also heard another common Republican deflection: “What about Canada?” This is an example of false equivalence, or whataboutism - a tactic used to divert attention from the actual issue by bringing up a loosely related comparison. In this case, the deflection goes something like:
Canada Example:
"Universal healthcare sounds great in theory, but just look at Canada—people have to wait months to see a doctor."
👉 Rather than engaging with how a U.S. public option might be structured or improved, the conversation is sidetracked by pointing to problems in a completely different system. It’s also a classic red herring—a distraction that pulls the conversation away from the core issue (e.g., the U.S. healthcare system's costs and inefficiencies) and onto an unrelated subject (Canada’s system). What I find particularly frustrating about the Healthcare debate is how central it is to people’s lives.
As you get older, your interactions with the healthcare system become more frequent. People start families, parents age, eyesight fades, chronic conditions emerge. Even if these issues haven’t touched you directly yet, they’re absolutely affecting someone in your social circle. Is anyone actually happy with the current system? Have your parents ever called you just to rave about how affordable their doctor’s visit was? No, because the system is fundamentally broken (i.e sucks ass). Republicans just want to keep it privatized to line the pockets the of their donors, and advance corporate interests. So let’s take that same privatized model and apply it to... education, infrastructure, imprisonment and transportation. What could go wrong?
2. On Gun Control
Logical Argument:
“The United States should implement comprehensive background checks and restrict access to high-capacity magazines."MAGA Response:
"Liberals want to take away all your guns and leave you defenseless. My 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed upon!"
👉 This oversimplifies and distorts the actual position, while relying on an individual’s interpretation of the Constitution. This “argument” falls into several categories of deflection and fallacy techniques, depending on how it is used. And again, they’re likely unaware they’re even doing it—but here are some of the patterns worth pointing out.
Appeal to Absolutism ("All-or-Nothing Fallacy")
MAGA Claim: "Any background check is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, which means it’s unconstitutional."
Why it's a deflection: The Second Amendment, like all constitutional rights, is subject to regulation—just as there are limits on free speech, assembly, or voting. For example, fully automatic weapons are already highly restricted. This absolutist interpretation ignores decades of legal precedent that supports reasonable regulation. Remember that the same people shouting this often cheer when the “orange Cheeto” floats the idea of running for a third term—or when any constitutional norm is twisted to protect the MAGA cult leader.
False Equivalence
Maga Claim: "If we allow background checks, the government will eventually take all our guns."
Why it's a deflection: This argument equates any regulation with a total ban, skipping over the middle ground where reasonable restrictions exist. Any sane, non-cult member understands that we need regulations on fully automatic weapons, age limits, and similar safety measures. But the MAGA position often treats themselves as the sole interpreters of the Second Amendment—where any regulation, no matter how minor, is seen as a gateway to total disarmament. I also tie this logic to the larger conservative movement of deregulation across all industries, —a stance that so-called Libertarians vehemently stand by. I will surely be addressing the fallacy of that in another piece!
All of the above exemplify how deflection tactics are frequently used to avoid engaging with actual policy discussion- something I believe many Trump voters are unwilling or unable to do. Conservative media outlets often argue that gun rights must be absolute, yet paradoxically support restrictions on other constitutional rights, like voting.
3. On Climate Change
Logical Argument:
"We need to transition toward renewable energy sources to reduce emissions."Straw-man response:
"They want to ban cars, planes, and hamburgers."
👉 This is a frequent straw-man used to discredit proposals like the Green New Deal, for example. It’s also one of the laziest fucking talking points out there—especially given the ongoing deregulation of the food and transportation industries, which is far more damaging than the climate policies being proposed. Ignoring those facts (Hey, look at me--am I MAGA now?), the attempt to sidestep conversation about renewable energy by echoing non-proven Fox News headlines is directly linked to social media shock and awe posts. Ask them to cite their sources, and the discussion usually ends—or you get a flood of shady, spam-ridden links. I’m looking at you, Breitbart.
What’s more infuriating is the hypocrisy: many Republican leaders deny or downplay climate change publicly, then turn around and demand federal disaster relief when their states are hit by climate-driven extreme weather. Recent examples of this include the West Virginia floods of this year, Georgia and Florida hurricane aid in 2024 and 2022 respectively.
Example:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has opposed climate action but frequently requests hurricane relief funds after devastating storms.
Texas politicians mock renewable energy but are quick to blame wind power when the Texas power grid fails——even though it was fossil fuel infrastructure that collapsed during the 2021 winter freeze.
👉 Hypocrisy: Rejecting climate science publicly, while acknowledging its effects when their states need money or assistance. This isn’t limited to climate policy—it’s emblematic of nearly every position (or lack thereof) from the Trump administration, and the broader conservative movement over the past 60 years. Rules for thee but not for me— on steroids, from hell. Damn you, Rush Limbaugh.
Contradiction: Republicans oppose government subsidies for clean energy but actively support subsidies for oil and coal.
Example:
The GOP calls green energy programs "wasteful spending," but supports billions in subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, criticized Biden’s climate policies as “socialism,” while simultaneously advocating for government bailouts for oil companies in Texas.
👉 Hypocrisy: Claiming to be against "big government" while protecting taxpayer-funded handouts.
Contradiction: Republicans vote against climate policies but later take credit when they bring jobs and investment.
Example:
Many Republican lawmakers voted against Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act—which funds clean energy projects——then publicly bragged about new green energy jobs in their districts.
House Speaker Mike Johnson opposed federal climate funding but promoted Louisiana’s wind energy projects when it benefited his state.
👉 Hypocrisy: Condemning climate action on paper, while celebrating its benefits when politically convenient. This isn’t exactly shocking—or even unique to Republicans. Both parties are guilty of this kind of political sleight of hand. But in the MAGA universe, it’s practically a feature, not a bug—and it's routinely ignored by conservative media.
I can go on and on about how MAGA is full of shit and incapable of arguing or acknowledging facts—but we already know that. What I aim to push back against is the labeling of thought, reason, and objectivity being labeled as "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
These people throw that term around the moment any lefty puts them in their place, or calls out the hypocrisy we see day after day across social media, on TV, and in our own circles. Fuck that. Just because you can’t defend your position—or even take the time to put forth a well-structured argument— does not make us deranged. YOU are the one blindly accepting whatever KKKaren spews out from the Oval Office every day, or whatever the Christo-fascist soft jaws post as words to live by. MAGA is the cult. MAGA is deranged. And Trumpism has diminished its followers' ability to think critically.
MAGA doesn’t fear name-calling—they fear accountability. They fear people who read, question, speak up, and refuse to settle for shallow memes over deep truth. So let’s keep making them uncomfortable. Loudly. Relentlessly. Intellectually. Because the real derangement would be silence.
If you read all of this, congrats! I guarantee you’ve now read more this month than your obnoxious Qanon uncle. Grab yourself a beer, you've earned it.
Edited by E. Sullivan
