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.
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
Any logical falacy
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
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.
Innuendo studios has a nice series of videos on this on YouTube
I was going to recommend this very thing.
Check out Rational Wiki’s page on logical fallacies https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
all of them, and are done by propaganda bots, like from russia, and israel. also trying to do the both sides argument, while ignoring that the other side is the one perpetrating it.
It must be nice knowing that you’re so correct that everyone who disagrees with you must be a bot.
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
Is there a word for dragging the argument to near-unrelated topics? E.g, post about lemmy.ml having comments on whether Ukraine has a nazi government.
I believe that’s “whataboutism”?
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The one I see the most is just playing dumb and pretending not to understand basic things
Context?
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.
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.
If the 20% they don’t support is the absolute most basic of human rights, then as far as I can tell they actually support 0% of what I want.
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
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
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.
The 30% is active genocide
Dude, you guys don’t give a shit that Myanmar is in a civil war, Sudan is in a civil war, China is ethnically cleansing Uighur Muslims, and that India and Pakistan are in almost-open conflict.
You put the fact that a trump ally in Israel wouldn’t listen to Democrats solely on the shoulders of Biden and Harris while completely not giving a singular fuck about any of those other conflicts.
This is why people like you are the PERFECT definition of slactivists, who are looking for a reason to not get a portion of what you want so you can feel morally superior to others for not participating in democracy.
Get over yourself.
Dude, you guys don’t give a shit that Myanmar is in a civil war, Sudan is in a civil war, China is ethnically cleansing Uighur Muslims, and that India and Pakistan are in almost-open conflict.
Whataboutism.
Israel wouldn’t listen to Democrats
No. Democratic loyalists are hellbent on rewriting history to erase the truth, and to cover up the fact that the Democratic party were and are active supporters and participants in the Gaza genocide, and that is at least as dangerous as anything MAGA is doing.
This is why people like you are the PERFECT definition of slactivists, who are looking for a reason to not get a portion of what you want so you can feel morally superior to others for not participating in democracy.
This is a completely insane way to describe opposition to genocide.
Get over yourself
Stop supporting genocide
The problem is, the other option is 70% genocide. So by not voting for the 30% genocide, you’re enabling the 70% genocide.
No, I mean the 30% of their policy that we disagree with is their 100% support for genocide.
And the republicans have 70% of their policy be genocide. Not just genocide of the palestinians, but genocide of non-gender conforming people and non-straight people.
It’s like comparing someone who doesn’t care that someone in another country is killing people, with someone who actively wants to kill people in your own back yard, and also doesn’t give a shit that someone is killing people in another country. By not voting for the first person, you’re allowing the second person do to whatever they want.
Edit to add: Democrats will let palestinians die horribly. That is bad and needs to be adressed.
But:
Sheeeeet hahaha drifting baby
It’s like comparing someone who doesn’t care that someone in another country is killing people Edit to add: Democrats will let palestinians die horribly.
See, right here: you’ve collapsed your whole argument by showing that even you aren’t willing to make a lesser argument for the actual democratic party, the one that was an active and willfully participant in genocide. You have to make up a genocide denying set of alternate facts where the democrats were just “not caring that someone in another country is killing people” (which is, again, genocide denialism) in order to present a sugar coated version of the democratic party that is actually palatable.
Democratic loyalists are hellbent on rewriting history to erase the truth, and to cover up the fact that the Democratic party were and are active supporters and participants in the Gaza genocide, and that is at least as dangerous as anything MAGA is doing.
And you keep denying that the republican administration is CURRENTLY actively supporting the genocide, along with imprisoning people in concentration camps. You’re not arguing in good faith, and I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
Apparently the mods consider it perfectly acceptable for MBech to openly lie about me and directly insult me based on that knowing lie, but will remove my comment if I respond. Why even have rules if the mods are just going to ignore them?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Since I am not american I may have missed something; to my knowledge no genocide got stopped or even prevented since trump once again got to power. What is your opinion on this matter?
My opinion is that doesn’t make opposition to genocide “purity testing”
It’s still happening though
I never said otherwise.
You didn’t clarify either
Ok. You didn’t clarify that you’re not a child molester either. What’s your point?
You argue with the intent to win, not discuss. You ignore counterpoints and just restate how your belief is correct. Your point is clear, but you act like no one else’s point has any merit because their “argument immediately fails”
Allowing the current administration to take control, either by voting Trump, third party, or abstaining, allowed the acceleration of the genocide and the cruelty… as well as accelerating the suffering/cruelty of other at-risk populations
But you will pick my argument apart based on how I “argued wrong” and act as if I don’t see your point… while simultaneously ignoring mine and restating yours with more words
It’s divisive and hardlined, and you don’t allow space for discussion with understanding. Your point is clear, is more than meritful, and I agree that the democrats were active participants. My point is that allowing Trump to lead his cult from the Oval Office again, is more damaging than the pushover Democrats. And that damage will be more destructive and harder to repair. And Palestinians still suffer, with even more gusto now, and every avenue to help stop it is being rapidly cut off
Does my point have merit? Is there any middle ground that you can see? Or do you prefer a factioned populace of opinions that stirs divisiveness, and allows a unified fascism to grab more ground… rather than allowing a discussion that may not end in agreement, but may allow a sense of comradery
Am I wrong, or are you just right?
You argue with the intent to win, not discuss. You ignore counterpoints and just restate how your belief is correct.
No. That’s you.
Your point is clear, but you act like no one else’s point has any merit because their “argument immediately fails”
This is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put the last bit in quotes.
Allowing the current administration to take control, either by voting Trump, third party, or abstaining, allowed the acceleration of the genocide
No. It didn’t. You were just unwilling to admit the scope of the genocide when it was your team doing it. This why I find these lesser evil arguments unconvincing: because they always come from people who consistently deny the evil of their side.
But you will pick my argument apart based on how I “argued wrong” and act as if I don’t see your point… while simultaneously ignoring mine and restating yours with more words
Again, this is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put part of it in quotes.
It’s divisive and hardlined, and you don’t allow space for discussion with understanding.
Again, no, that’s you.
Your point is clear, is more than meritful, and I agree that the democrats were active participants.
And yet you seem very unhappy about me disagreeing with the person denying they were active participants.
My point is that allowing Trump to lead his cult from the Oval Office again, is more damaging than the pushover Democrats.
Maybe, but it remains the case that opposition to the democratic party because they are actively genocidal is not just “purity testing”.
Palestinians still suffer, with even more gusto now, and every avenue to help stop it is being rapidly cut off
No. Again: lesser evil arguments are very unconvincing if they come from people who consistently downplay their sides evil.
Does my point have merit? Is there any middle ground that you can see? Or do you prefer a factioned populace of opinions that stirs divisiveness, and allows a unified fascism to grab more ground… rather than allowing a discussion that may not end in agreement, but may allow a sense of comradery
Right back at you, mate. You spent more words attacking me then actually making a point.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
