Colinxy: Shooting the Messenger

An old fallacy in politics, dressed up as modern discourse

One of the most reliable indicators that someone has run out of arguments is when they stop attacking the point and start attacking the person making it. The logical fallacy is ancient — shooting the messenger — and it is often paired with its close cousin, poisoning the well. Together, they form the perfect shield for people who cannot, or will not, engage with ideas.

This post was inspired by a comment on the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Facebook Group, responding to my No Minister article: Labour’s 2026 Policy: Powered by Unicorn Farts.

The Facebook thread can be found via the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Facebook Group (26/08/2026). [Apparently now removed]

Among the replies was this brilliant piece of intellectual craftsmanship:

Oh another right-wing group that only has lies and crap to talk about.

That was it. No refutation. No counter‑argument. No engagement with the content. Just a drive‑by dismissal based entirely on who they think the messenger is.

It’s textbook shooting the messenger, reinforced with poisoning the well:

• Don’t look at the argument.
• Don’t examine the evidence.
• Don’t engage with the reasoning.
• Just declare the source “right‑wing,” and therefore invalid.
• Add “lies and crap” for flavour.

This is not debate. It’s not even disagreement. It’s intellectual laziness masquerading as moral superiority.

The Tactic Is Everywhere

This kind of response is depressingly common. It’s the default move for people who cannot defend their position, cannot explain their assumptions, and cannot tolerate the possibility that someone outside their ideological tribe might have a point.

Instead of engaging with the argument, they attack the identity of the speaker. Instead of addressing the content, they smear the context. Instead of thinking, they label.

It’s the rhetorical equivalent of sticking fingers in one’s ears and shouting.

Why They Do It

Because it’s easy.

It requires no reading, no analysis, no effort, and no risk. It allows the commenter to feel morally triumphant without doing any intellectual work. It also signals loyalty to their tribe: “I dismissed the right people, therefore I’m one of the good ones.”

This is how political discourse collapses — not through disagreement, but through the refusal to engage at all.

The Cure: Demand Arguments, Not Labels

If someone wants to disagree, fine. If someone wants to challenge the numbers, great. If someone wants to debate the fiscal logic, even better.

But if all they can muster is “right‑wing lies,” then they’re not debating. They’re not thinking. They’re not even participating.

They’re just shooting the messenger.

And that tells you everything you need to know about the strength of their position.

Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister - this article was sourced HERE