I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
- Brillo-Padding
- Tire-Kicking
- Backyarding
- Barney-Rubbling
These are nonsense words
Barney-Rubbing
I misread and had so many questions about Barney the big purple dinosaur.
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
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”.
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.
The other way happens as well. You can say you voted harris because its the lesser of 2 evils, then someone calls you genocider… 🤦♂️
Like, people forget how FPTP systems work.
I’ve been called a harris voting genocider a couple times now. I’m Australian.
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
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”?
Online arguements take ten times the energy to put in than to exit out, any well thought arguement could be shut down just by ignoring it, or making up reasons to avoid confronting it (whataboutism for example)
Nuh uh
Fuck
Asking the same question over and over for years…
Then just JAGing off (just asking questions) till the other person gets tired of explaining.
Like, if people want to insist on rehashing something from over a decade ago despite it being settled history at this point.
They don’t want to actually discuss it, they have an opinion they agree with, and want to scream at someone for valuing facts more than their opinion
What do you call someone who is convinced you are something you aren’t, based on only a couple words in a comment on a post, draws wild assumptions from that and no actual knowledge and demands you prove them wrong otherwise, they think, they win? Like I’m going to give you my resume to prove I’m not what you think I am? Nope
What do you call someone …
A moron?
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
On the other hand, when the sources are literally just news stories on npr.com or whatever, there’s no excuse not to just click it and at least read the headline.
Whataboutism
Well maybe but lemme tell you about the others!
Buttery males
This makes the males so slippery!
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.
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.
There’s some good examples and discussion here https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
I love Innuendo Studio’s stuff. Such a bummer that he’s most likely quitting.
Any logical falacy
False dichotomy - Assuming that because someone doesn’t agree with one viewpoint, they must fully support the opposite. Framing the issue as if there are only two mutually exclusive positions, when in fact there may be many shades in between.
Strawmanning - Misrepresenting someone’s argument - usually by exaggerating, distorting, or taking it out of context - so it’s easier to attack or refute.
Ad hominem - Attacking the character, motives, or other traits of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Reductionism - The tendency to reduce every complex issue to a single cause - like blaming everything on capitalism, fascism, patriarchy, etc. - while ignoring other contributing factors.
Moving the goalposts - Changing the criteria of an argument or shifting its focus once the original point has been addressed or challenged - usually to avoid conceding.
Hasty generalizations - Treating entire groups as if they’re uniform, attributing a trait or behavior of some individuals to all members of that group.
Oversimplification - Ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in most issues, reducing them to overly simple terms or black-and-white thinking.Man knows his fallacies! Excellent. This bodes well for interesting discussion!
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
