I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
Moving the goalposts.
Butwhatabout.
Appeal to hypocrisy is big.
I thought it was called “whataboutism”?
Yeah, same thing.
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
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?
This is satire right lol? The utter lack of formattinf gives it away. Otherwise it’s just totally unhinged
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.
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.
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.
Blue maga? I wouldn’t encourage people to vote for the Democrat party if it had any viable competition.
I have never seen an online discussion where gaslighting was used. People usually just learned the term and they think it’s a synonym for lying.
Gaslighting could take the form of saying “my political team would never do [the thing].” Their political team subsequently does [the thing]. Then claiming they never said the original statement. Sometimes they’re even so fucking stupid as to leave that comment visible so you can just screenshot it and ask “this you?”
… ask me how I know.
Basically every step of the narcissists prayer is attempted gaslighting
That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
How is that not just lying?
Gaslighting (if my understanding is correct) is manipulating someone. Making someone question their own sanity, blaming them, isolating from other people and making them dependent on you.
Lying on the internet to win a stupid argument with a stranger hardly can even start to measure to that.
From my example, the part where they claim to have not made the argument is what I’d consider gaslighting. My understanding of gaslighting is any attempt to make someone question reality. So the reality is they definitely said one thing. When that goes wrong, they claim to have never said it. It’s a tool of someone who manipulates.
Then almost any blatant lie would be gaslighting, which I don’t think fits the meaning. My understanding is there are more necessary attributes for a situation to be “gaslighting”, mainly the manipulation and dependency.
If someone lies about what they said in writing (in the age of internet archive of all things) it’s just a plain lie, and a dumb one at that.
This is an excellent example of moving the goalposts, thank you!
That’s the problem with relying on slang instead of real conversation. The desire to process our social media feeds as fast and with as little typing as possible means we encapsulate complex issues into ridiculously overgeneralized shorhand. We take in minimal information about each item, apply minimal quality control (mostly our own prejudices), use minimal thought to arrive at value judgements that make us feel morally impeccable, and spit out condensed replies. It’s superficial hillbilly-grade communication with a delusion of being informed, involved and enlightened.
No we don’t! /s
Nice try, Elon
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.
Strawmanning because they won’t or can’t understand your argument, mistaking the map for the place usually because of equivocating on vaguely understood or multiple definitions, non-sequetor this is where someone just yaps for awhile based on the crap that falls out of their head based on the words they heard but didn’t get the point and is barely tracking
Online debate is a waste of time. You can somewhat short-circuit the bad-faith stuff by arguing values instead of facts or policy.
For example, if you say that the State has no right to remove trans kids from their parents, you’ve made a legal argument that’s vulnerable to all the bad faith and you may even be technically wrong. However if you argue that you trust parents to decide what’s best over the State, there is nothing to argue about. Bonus, you might actually get some real talk out of reactionaries.
Then they say they trust parents to make decisions on vaccines when what they mean is they are anti-vax.
Online debate can help in niche situations. It’s not about convincing the person
toyyou are directly opposing. It’s about getting the counter arguments in a bigger forum so less brainwashed people might be able to avoid getting brainwashed.This is it, you’re not likely to convince the person you’re arguing with (*), but you can convince lurkers.
*You won’t convince them then, they’re too prideful and defensive to accept alternate ideas during the argument. But you might plant a seed of doubt. Overtime, it might grow and and be accompanied by other doubty plants from seeds planted by others along the way, and who knows? They might have a breakthrough someday, and that argument, perhaps from years ago, was a part of it. I’ve been on both sides of this dynamic myself online and in person.
So let me ask you something. We all know that a big part of shaping public opinion online is simply just being exposed to an opinion repeated over and over again. Like when someone says something and then has multiple rebuttals that are similar. Or like when we read an opinion over and over again that is not contested. Given what you said, how do we make headway in shaping opinions publicly by disengaging and allowing their opinions to freely go uncontested. If online debate is a waste of time, why are the just powerful and richest people investing in shaping it while you tell others to disengage
Check out Rational Wiki’s page on logical fallacies https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
There’s another type I see often here with these kinds of assholes. It’s intentionally misconstruing or reaching the wrong conclusions about what the other person is saying. It’s a form of strawmanning. They’ll move the argument just a bit to the side, drop a false zinger that could fit the original narrative if you squint hard enough, and accuse you of saying or doing horrible shit when in reality you’re saying something else.
And guess what, the people reading do not give a shit. They’ll just dogpile if you try to fight it because Lemmy is wonderful like that and people here are so nice and critical.
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.
It’s bad food. I get into bad hungry defensive moods with bad food.
- Brillo-Padding
- Tire-Kicking
- Backyarding
- Barney-Rubbling
Barney-Rubbing
I misread and had so many questions about Barney the big purple dinosaur.
These are nonsense words
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
