I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
Flooding the zone (which now that I think about it is close enough to gish-galloping for there not to be much of a distinction), whataboutism, and moving the goalposts are all extremely common.
Whataboutism and moving the goalposts are the ones I see most often.
I think the most common thing I see online and offline is constantly adding more sources to the discussion to the point that the other person feels they can’t know anything. My grandmother does this with her nonsense and pseudo-intellectual books. Just because I haven’t read “why inner city black people have guns 3” doesn’t mean I can’t not be a racist.
Yeah, feels like a form of gish galloping
That’s sounds like a made up term
All terms are made up terms
Cherry picking is probably one of the most egregious
You can make a university-level essay on a subject, and people will identify one tiny irrelevant detail they disagree with and ignore the overall point
Cherry pick and move the goal post.
For example:
University-level essays? You know for-profit universities exist, right? If you don’t have a masters degree on the subject, then you have no right to speak on the topic.
Oh shit you triggered me with “you don’t have the right” lol
Yeah like I don’t have the right to talk about abortion, reproductive health, or anything like that because I don’t have ovaries
I don’t live in a society, I don’t have a mother, sister, thousands of females in my life who I care about. I don’t get to advocate for women’s reproductive rights, because I don’t have the right bits in my crotchal area
I also don’t get to express an opinion on anything that I am not a personal expert in. If I saw a helicopter with one of the blade snapped off, I’m not allowed to refuse boarding, because I’m not a helicopter maintenance technician. I don’t have the right to express my opinion on the subject
Appeal to fallacies is the self-important idiot’s way out of replying to someone’s argument.
Appeal to fallacies
I’ve seen this misused. An argument from fallacy is a claim that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is false because of the fallacy.
Claiming an argument is invalid (therefore not worth serious consideration until corrected) due to fallacy is not an instance.
I see ad hominem very often as well as strawmanning. Specifically on lemmy people will say tankie/auth or irl they’ll say woke/liberal and then use those insults to further strawman argumenents. Specifically multiple times I have said “hey I voted Kamala but her policies deeply concern me”, and people responded with “Uhh how dare you not vote Kamala and openly declare you hate democracy, freedom, and trans people”.
deleted by creator
Or I can say that I voted Kamala and I still hate that she supported genocide and get called a tankie.
What you need to keep in mind is that it’s not just voting, it’s also campaigning. If you’re a citizen who has opinions you share with your friends, that’s one thing. If you own a large online community that consistently puts out propaganda, that’s another thing. That’s campaigning. Voting for a candidate while campaigning against that same candidate is an action that confuses other people, because it’s self-defeating.
So we’ve moved from “you have to vote for the Democrats” to “you can’t publicly criticize the Democrats”
You can publicly criticise them. It’s just when that criticism looks exactly the same as an org campaigning against them that it’s sus.
Lol. So you can’t publicly criticize them
Well, since you, personally, are a group of a hundred people with no ability to communicate nuance… yes. If you were an individual who could choose to add qualifiers and speak carefully with the goal of preventing more Trump, then you’d be able to criticise them. It’s just because you’re a media conglomerate with the subtlety of a truck that you can’t. Sorry.
/making-a-point
I’ve been called a harris voting genocider a couple times now. I’m Australian.
I often get the feeling those people see everyone who voices dissent as one big amorphous blob. It’s as if every conversation on a topic is part of one long argument, and you get assigned every claim that anyone ever made. Almost like they watched that “moops” alt-right playbook video and drew the exact wrong conclusion.
Yup, every time I talk about workers libertarian they say “uhh but what about china, haha no food”. Ignoring the fact that most of their claims are garbage simply being a leftist has caused people to drag me with every leftist ideology and person to ever exist.
Whataboutism
Well maybe but lemme tell you about the others!
Buttery males
Here’s a handy guide to help.
Why do we not have some brilliant mind just fully memorize all of the ins and outs of how these arise and just crush bad faith arguments by simply labeling them in real time rather than engaging with them?
Like, if framed correctly “I don’t engage in logical fallacy. I will immediately call it out, move on, and go back to the relevant topic.”
“Oh you don’t care about starving children?”
“That’s an appeal to emotion. I won’t engage with this obvious logical fallacy. I will address the causes of children suffering to alleviate their suffering.”
“But the cause is illegal immigrants!!!”
“That’s a strawman. I won’t engage with logical fallacies. If you’d like to have a discussion about solving problems, Im all ears, but until we’re done pointing fingers, this conversation is over.”
To be clear, almost every argument contains a fallacy in it. Having a fallacy in an argument only introduces the possibility of it being wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.
An example of a valid argument is like:
P1: Socrates is a man P2: All men are mortal C: Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is guaranteed to be correct if the premises are correct. Most scientific arguments are technically invoking a fallacy or are invalid in some way, due to the extrapolation from an experiment in lab conditions to a more general conclusion.
You’re conflating two separate ideas.
A valid arguent needn’t any logical fallacy.
Edit: You’re talking about syllogisms? I think? But like that’s tangential to my point. See my new post addressing your other inaccuracies.
That’s a tactic I’ve seen widely used, especially by the assholes we are talking about.
Words have meaning to us, and fascists love that because they are not beholden to any truth at all.
It’s actually somewhat effective in my experience. Another thing I’ve recently started doing is calling out mean comments. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a mean person but it’s quite difficult accusation to argue against when the evidence is right there in front of their face.
- Brillo-Padding
- Tire-Kicking
- Backyarding
- Barney-Rubbling
After an event happens, many people convince themselves they saw it coming all along even if they had no idea.
Everyone is an expert on everything… Worse now because of LLMs
Phrasing something as protecting children… The ultimate form of manipulation
The one I see the most is just playing dumb and pretending not to understand basic things
That may or may not be a technique.
Sometimes they’re genuinely dumb, but often it’s obvious that they know, and they know you know.
That would be sea-lioning.
Depending on what they are doing, it can be a form of sea-lioning.
Context?
Appeal to Fallacy.
It might not be a fallacy.
A fallacy doesn’t make an argument wrong.
There are degrees of fallacies.
Claiming a statement is wrong because there might be a fallacy is a thought-ending argument. There’s more nuance and relatability in rhetoric. Refusing to engage because someone’s using a fallacy is reasonable, but calling it by name isn’t a magic spell that forces someone to throw in the towel.
This is a good one. The use of fallacies doesn’t necessarily void an argument, it just fails to support it logically.
For example, I could craft a perfect, clean, cold-cut argument so water-tight and beautiful that even ben-fucking-shapiro would have a come-to-jesus. Calling my opponent a “dickhead” at the end (ad hominem) doesn’t prove anything, but it doesn’t nullify the entire rest of the argument either. Plus it’s fun.
I agree, an argument can be a narrative, too. One where the second person is a dickhead.
This is everywhere on the internet. I think it’s people looking for an easy way out in arguing. Purposely include a few logic fallacies and watch as the vast majority of people latch onto them. Ignoring any previous points they were trying to make. I like ad hominem.
Someone started talking about my hair in the profile picture on a discussion on another site because they didn’t agree with what I said.
When people do shit like this I just disengage. Life is too short to waste with bad faith arguments.
Ad-Hominen attack, I think its called.
Ad hominem. Yes, that’s it.
“Thought-terminating clichés”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
Also… I don’t think it has a name, but dubiously claiming any of these examples in an argument. Maybe it’d just be called “deflection”.
I’ve seen so many valid arguments shutdown as whataboutism, sealioning, concern trolling when they were valid arguments. It’s just as much bullshit as actually doing any of those things.
Is there a name for the thing where you’ll make an argument with like 3 distinct points supporting it, and the other person will attack only one, and claim the whole thing is in their favor?
Like, “You can’t cast two leveled spells in a turn, and you’re silenced, and you’re out of spell slots, so you can’t cast another fireball”
“No, I have another spell slot from my ring. Fireball time!”
cherry picking
Nice try, Elon
