I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
One I see people use frequently and I’m not sure they realize it’s a bad argument is the fallacy of relative privation.
“X is bad. We should do something to fix X.”
“Y is so much worse. I can’t believe you want to fix X when we need to fix Y.”
Both X and Y can be bad and need to be fixed. Fixing one doesn’t preclude fixing the other.
An alternate form of this is:
“A is bad”
“B is worse, so A is fine.”
deleted by creator
Is okay to choose A simply because B is quite literally orange hitler?
Obviously yes. Doing so isn’t saying A is fine, doing so is saying B is worse, and bad is still better than worse.
If you tried to say that there was no reason to be concerned with A because B was worse, that’s a fallacy. But acknowledging that one of two options, while still bad, is LESS bad, isn’t a fallacy. That’s just being realistic.
Whataboutism
“Russia invaded ukraine! Putin must be held accountable!”
“Yeah well what about Iraq, 2003???”
That’s the “tu quoque”, aka “you too” argument evasion
Down with the empire! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viriathus
Removed by mod
What’s the word for dumping a novel of slop like this?
Making an argument. What you did is called “ad hominom”
New copypasta just dropped everyone!
This is satire right lol? The utter lack of formattinf gives it away. Otherwise it’s just totally unhinged
Speaking of bad faith techniques: ad hominem.
Not as much an ‘ad hominem’ (which would be discrediting the person) than an ‘appeal to ridicule’. However, not all criticism should just be dismissed as fallacious (the ‘fallacy fallacy’).
If it makes you feel any better society is completely fucked in say 50 years and there will be a collapse/catastrophe. You will never have to worry about this ever again.
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
“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.
Check out Rational Wiki’s page on logical fallacies https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Fallacy accusations.
When someone does not want to argue about your points they will attack the way you used to made them. If you check hard enough you can find fallacies in most online conversations. So if someone wants they could easily accuse anyone of making this or that fallacy. Some of them being also kind of subjective. Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?
They would just change the debate subject and put you on the defensive defending yourself of making fallacies.
I just usually point out this attitude and end the debate when this happens.
A fallacy matters if it’s central to proving the argument, otherwise it probably doesn’t. Eg Bringing up an anecdote, or a subjective experience as a way of illustrating a point could be said to be fallacious, but is not, if the argument is well supported enough that would stand without it.
I just had an argument where I ended my point with the words “this is a pure could have been:” and added a very likely scenario that may well could have come to pass it some events were different. Obviously it was speculation and not central to the previous argument, but in my estimation likely.
Then other person instead of responding to actual points took the last part and accused me of should’a, would’a, could’a.
Dude, yes! But not the point, also I was the one that pointed it out. The type of person that would explain to a comedian their own joke.
Man that’s such a strawman, you’re completely misrepresenting why they bring up fallacies.
Is there a fallacy fallacy? where people assume that because something has a fallacy its wrong, or they accuse something of having a non-existant fallacy?
There is indeed
There are a few phallic fallacies for sure.
Fallacy accusations.
No one needs to waste their time with someone else’s invalid reasoning.
Some of them being also kind of subjective.
Logicians & philosophers would disagree. Fallacies clarify identifying common reasoning errors & save effort overexplaining clearly documented problems.
Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?
Strawman means claiming to refute an argument by instead refuting a misrepresentation of it. Unclear how a question about examples would arise there unless the definition wasn’t understood.
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.
Depending on what they are doing, it can be a form of sea-lioning.
Sometimes they’re genuinely dumb, but often it’s obvious that they know, and they know you know.
That would be sea-lioning.
Context?
I’ll give you a huge one.
Purity tests (when cosplaying as liberals). If a person isn’t super-duper liberal on every single issue then you can’t support them.
There’s tons of this on this very site. People who will tell you they’ll stay home and not vote for someone, if they only support 80% of what they seemingly want. People see this, then emulate said behavior.
Somehow, liberals would rather get 0% of what they want instead of 50% because of the missed 30% that the candidate doesn’t support.
Politicians you don’t like can make good policies and politicians you do like can make bad policies. Parties are not football teams for you to take blind sides and politicians are not celebrities to be veneered blindly. They are public servants, nothing more.
It’s a global phenomenon, but Americans are particularly affect by the false dichotomy fallacy of having the two sides of political spectrum represented when, in reality, they just have two flavors of right to choose from. Both are shit in their own way.
People love to turn off their brains and follow the leadership. That’s what makes us easily manipulable. It’s not because someone aligns politically with you that they are working with your best interest in mind.
Sorry for the random rambling.
Yeah, and you’d think that even leftists would agree that having the people in charge that want cheaper college, and cheaper medicine/healthcare would be the better option, even if (from their lens) they are a right wing party.
Not if it means exterminating whole races overseas
I agree 100% with the purity test thing, but “liberal” ≠ leftist. That’s not a purity thing, it’s a “words have specific definitions” thing.
I know idiot tankies say this, and I know they are annoying when they constantly use “liberal” as an insult… But it is technically correct that they are two distinct ideologies (with some overlap).
Sure. My point stands. A leftist will get 30-50% of what they want with a Democrat in office compared to 0% of what they want.
A toddler can work out it’s better that you get a small portion of what you want, instead of nothing. It’s really that simple.
Do Not Wait To Strike Till the Iron Is Hot; But Make It Hot By Striking
People who abstain from voting dem need to read that.
If committing genocide is bipartisan policy for the US, then what I want as a leftist is for the US to collapse.
the US to collapse.
You act like that’ll improve the genocide situation. We’re in the middle of a collapse and the new godking is ALL OVER more genocide.
The US will change hands, but it won’t be to the people…
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You act like that’ll improve the genocide situation.
A country collapsing absolutely diminished it’s ability to do genocide. Would you say Nazi Germany collapsing would be a bad thing?
We’re in the middle of a collapse and the new godking is ALL OVER more genocide.
Yes, your politicians in general are all over genocide, so the only way to stop them is for the USA to collapse to the point that they can’t.
Would you say Nazi Germany collapsing would be a bad thing? Are we Nazi Germany? USA to collapse to the point that they can’t. Does the country and all those juicy resources just disappear? Nawww, people outside of the country are already calling the shots.
Removed by mod
If the 20% they don’t support is the absolute most basic of human rights, then as far as I can tell they support 0% of what I want.
genocide is not something you negotiate away. Some things arent for sale. If you choose to whore for those sweet sweet zionist paychecks, thats on you. Dont project that vileness on others.
Was this supposed to be a demonstration of projection? If so, well done.
genocide is not something you negotiate away.
Genocide is not something you stay at home for and hope it goes away on its own.
You don’t get to claim the ally if all you did was nothing.
OP criticized people who stayed home (choosing to hold on to their purity) instead of voting for the candidates least likely to perpetuate futher suffering.
Going “oh no this trolley problem is so terrible I refuse to even look at the lever” is prioritizing your own moral superiority over the people tied to the tracks.
Further
genocide is not something you negotiate away.
And such imply that we are voting to start one or not. That’s not on the ballot. The war has already started and we are asking people to vote for the side that cares more about ending it.
It really shows how privileged we are that we take a luxury of picking allies.
Even if someone is taking the position of total Palestine Victory the dems are the better pick as they most likely lead to being ableyto fight another day.
People who didn’t vote because the dems aren’t perfect are the worst allies.
Do Not Wait To Strike Till the Iron Is Hot; But Make It Hot By Striking
deleted by creator
People who didn’t vote because the dems aren’t perfect
It’s hard to take seriously people who describe “actively committing genocide” as “not perfect”
Damn soldier, you have a lot of luxury commenting from the front line.
Lmk how abstaining strategy is working. Read the part I wrote about living to fight another day.
Maybe take your brain out of the box and wear it.
Brain in a box literally posts like someone doing the exact thing I’m talking about. Funny huh?
Wdym? that Box Brain wants to keep the genocide going by demonizing those that would oppose it? I’ve literally asked him what his plan is instead, but he keeps purity testing and insisting he is not a troll. I re-stated my position in a few words for clarity and wanting to be understood.
In that you consider anyone disagreeing with you to be bad faith. You are an authoritarian.
And you are on the front line? What is your point?
And no, Democrats give Palestinians no better chance of fighting another day, that just give liberals a license to pretend the genocide isn’t happening.
Maybe you should take your brain out of your skull and wear it.
This is the perfect example of the purity test OP was talking about.
Two people who couldn’t be more clear in their comments how disgusted they are by this obvious ongoing genocide, but yet completely powerless to do anything about it.
One person wants to use the little power they have to steer the country as far away from genocide as they can, and the other who sees that the game is rigged and wants no part in the government claiming their consent.
What’s unfortunate is that you’re directed all you anger at each other since neither knows how to direct it at the people in power.
Democrats give Palestinians no better chance of fighting another day, that just give liberals a license to pretend the genocide isn’t happening.
“Democrats” are not a monolith. Criticize the democrats all you want when they deny the genocide, but when we have candidates saying the following, it does feel like you’re being overly pessimistic about what allies you actually do have available to you inside this broken party:
“As we speak, in this moment, 1.1 million innocents in Gaza are at famine’s door,” Ocasio-Cortez said in her speech Friday. “A famine that is being intentionally precipitated through the blocking of food and global humanitarian assistance by leaders in the Israeli government.”
“If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like,” the New York Democrat added, “open your eyes.”
And you are on the front line? What is your point?
I’m telling you to put up or shut up. Making purity tests for what is a good ally for those actually dying is insanely tone deaf.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You forget the most common one of all, lying.
That’s part gishgalloping part gaslighting, no?
I love this idea of defining lying using other manipulation techniques when lying itself is such a simple thing in comparison
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
Whataboutism
Buttery males
This makes the males so slippery!
Well maybe but lemme tell you about the others!
I remember reading that list years and years ago and thinking how petty it was that so much effort has gone into it.
Now I’m a little bit worried about how far ahead of the game these cunts are.
Dude. Power seekers have been doing this shit since ancient times, and you’re getting your panties in a twist about people who fight back against them? Anons know this stuff because they’ve been dealing with it since the dawn of the net.
To be fair I wasn’t around in ancient times to get my loincloth in a twist about it. When I saw that list the Internet was just moving away from Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan chat rooms. It wasn’t the all-pervasive life-replacement it is today.
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
“You don’t have the right, O, you don’t have the right”
There is a series "The Alt Right Playbook" that covers a lot of bad faith and manipulative tactics, many of which are used online.
I hate the one where you call them a fascist (because they literally are) and then they come around and call you a “blue MAGA”.
like bitch, if I was “blue MAGA” I’d be making IEDs and forcing abortions on women and shit. ain’t nobody got time for that. I’m building a garden so I can fuckin eat this year.
Calling someone “blue MAGA” is the equivalent of saying “no you!”
However, it’s time to stop pretending like some small group of “MAGA” conservatives have hijacked the party and taken things too far. The monied interests backing Trump are the same as have been backing Republicans for decades. The Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. Mitch McConnell has been working to fill the federal courts with Federalist picks for a long time. Picking or just outright manufacturing court cases that would set new precedents. Hell, even those thinktanks are just recent iterations of the same interest’s attempts to shape the government as they see fit. Trump is just a nepo baby turned grifter who got lucky because his grift was actually effective at attracting and controlling the loudest segment of the Republican base.
Trump just transparently said “As long as I get filthy rich, get to be king, and you keep [metaphorically] sucking my dick, I’ll keep my followers in line and use my position to put your people in power so they can implement your ‘Project 25’ or whatever.” Republicans mostly objected to him because he lacked subtlety and was transparently greedy and petty. He ignored the game of slow, subtle changes and manipulation through “decorum” that Republicans had become experts in. Unfortunately for us, that worked wonders on a subset of the population
The people who helped those Republican politicians keep getting elected and basically wrote their proposed laws noticed Trump was popular. When it became apparent that Trump’s followers were loyal, the money jumped at the chance to fast track their vision and backed him completely. They helped tweak and hone Trump’s message to amplify his grifter magic. That plus some changes to election laws around the country, gerrymandering, and likely other more covert, extralegal vote manipulation got him back in power.
Anyone who unironically says “blue MAGA” immediately gives themselves away as someone to not take seriously.
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is a troll.
I committed the grievous sin of disagreeing with @internetCitizen, so they have stalked my comment history to respond call me a troll under every comment I’ve made.
I use bluemaga to refer to people who behave like MAGA supporters but for the Dems: people who believe all disagreement should be forbidden, like the guy currently stalking me across multiple instances to insult me because I disagreed with him about the Democrats policy on Gaza.
people who believe all disagreement should be forbidden, like the guy currently stalking me across multiple instances to insult me because I disagreed with him about the Democrats policy on Gaza.
Btw I have asked you what your policy would be instead so that I can understand what your take is, but you won’t clarify, so I can only conclude you are a massive troll.
Let me say tldr it once again:
I put forth the claim that we have a better shot of influencing the dems for a ceasefire that the evangelical Rs. Palestine is in desperate need for one.
By the time of the election Palestine was in bad shape and needs to be able to live to fight another day. I never said dems were saints; just that the pragmatic need for the palestiniant people means we need to put political support in the place we can most influence; which at the time is voting blue.
Go ahead and let us know what your policy take is. If you are serious and not a troll that is.
Btw I have asked you what your policy would be instead so that I can understand what your take is, but you won’t clarify, so I can only conclude you are a massive troll.
I have, you ignored my posts so you could continue to slander and strawman me. All for the sin of disagreement. You concluded i was a “Massive troll” because I disagreed with you.
By the time of the election Palestine was in bad shape and needs to be able to live to fight another day
Because the Democrats were helping to exterminate them.
I never said dems were saints;
No, but you do deny their genocide, and attack anyone who disagrees.
that the pragmatic need for the palestiniant people means we need to put political support in the place we can most influence; which at the time is voting blue.
The Democrats were and are completely committed to the Palestinian genocide, we have no ability to influence that, as the previous 18 months showed. But you will not accept that, because you are a genocide denier.
Go ahead and let us know what your policy take is. If you are serious and not a troll that is.
Go ahead and read my posts rather than stalking my comment history to call me a troll under unrelated posts.
Blue maga? I wouldn’t encourage people to vote for the Democrat party if it had any viable competition.
You think all MAGA people are actively building IEDs.
No, I think you have the definition of that word wrong blue Maga is just the people on the left that are making money, commenting, andreacting to the shit people do on the right. CNN and MSNBC telling us the latest bullshit Trump has done is a blue Maga type behavior
I was under the impression it was the “Hillary warned us” and “Putin is behind everything” crowd, since it mirrors the MAGA saviour and conspiracy fantasies.
Oh wow. You see, Russia is behind all this, holy crap this nation is cooked. It’s fucked it’s gone. I have a person on the Internet telling me Russia isn’t behind anything and they are totally not planning the destruction of the United States because they Totally have not had a singular leader(Putin) for the last 30 or so years where we have TOTTALY NOT had disruption every four or so😏
Anyways, I looked up the definition for myself and it looks like you’re the one that’s right, At least about the Hillary part. so sorry for my rant.
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.
Removed by mod
