>>3329957 (OP)Association fallacy/argumentum ad odium.
You associate atheism with unrelated groups whose perception of which we, as a collective, find to be negative (commies, pedos, troons) to discredit it instead of engaging with the idea itself.
Argumentum ad odium, also known as the appeal to spite, appeal to hatred, or appeal to anger, is a logical fallacy and rhetorical device that attempts to win favor for an argument or discredit an opposing view by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, schadenfreude, or hatred within the audience, rather than addressing the substantive merits of the argument itself. Derived from the Latin odium meaning "hatred," this fallacy operates by associating the opposition's position with a widely detested figure, ideology, or concept, thereby triggering an emotional rejection of the idea based on prejudice or animosity rather than logical evaluation. It is fundamentally a pathetic appeal (appeal to emotion) that bypasses rational reflection, leveraging the psychological tendency for emotions to subvert the mind and incite action or rejection without critical scrutiny.
The mechanism of argumentum ad odium typically involves reframing a neutral or reasonable thesis into a pejorative formulation through association of ideas or images, without providing justification on the merits of the case. For instance, the statement "men and women are equal in rights" might be distorted into the fallacious claim "you believe men must lose all virility in the presence of women," thereby rendering the original argument odious through misrepresentation. Similarly, advocating for "respecting animals" might be twisted into "you want to cry over the fate of every gnat," exploiting the audience's potential annoyance or disdain for perceived absurdity. This technique relies on emotional language and targeted criticism of specific groups or individuals to divert attention from the actual argument, creating a sense of urgency or outrage that overshadows rational debate.
This fallacy is often confused with ad hominem attacks, but a key distinction exists: while ad hominem arguments actively attack the character or circumstances of the opponent to discredit their viewpoint, argumentum ad odium assumes that hatred for the opposing figure or concept already exists and merely seeks to exploit that pre-existing sentiment. It does not necessarily need to invent new animosity; it simply amplifies existing spite to sway the audience. In political and social discourse, this manifests when a speaker argues against a rival by highlighting their association with corrupt or hated entities, such as claiming "you shouldn't trust my opponent because they are corrupt and only care about wealthy donors," thereby eliciting hatred without engaging with the opponent's actual policies. This tactic is prevalent in polarized societies, where emotional appeals often replace constructive dialogue, leading to a breakdown in meaningful argumentation and the reinforcement of ideological silos.