I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
You forget the most common one of all, lying.
Appeal to fallacies is the self-important idiot’s way out of replying to someone’s argument.
“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.
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.
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.
It’s bad food. I get into bad hungry defensive moods with bad food.
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.
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.
Well mr anti-purity test, maybe these people you dont like have non-negotaibles – like being against genocide. Things they wont negotiate away which you dont understand it because theres nothing you wouldnt sell out.
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.
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.
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.
Hey look, we have a live one!
@mods: censor this🖕
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:
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
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?
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”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Anyone who unironically says “blue MAGA” immediately gives themselves away as someone to not take seriously.
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.
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.
Motte and bailey.
- “The Kingdom of Foo has no inequality!”
- “Actually it has quite a bit…”
- “Well it’s still moving in the right direction, and that’s what really matters.”
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
Nice try, Elon
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.
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”
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
