I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Whataboutism
Buttery males
Well maybe but lemme tell you about the others!
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
Here is a great piece someone put together a while ago which goes through many of the techniques bad actors use.
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.
Using a wedge issue as a universal bludgeon to attack anyone that disagrees with them.
Not sure what technique that’s called. Concern troll, possibly?
Concern troll is, as I understand it, more directly faking concern for a person. Things like "Are you okay? Do you need to talk to someone?"because you rebutted their argument, or “Suicide/self harm are never the answer” because you posted an opinion they disagree with. Sometimes it even rises to the point of reporting comments as self harm in a way that gets an automated or admin response.
Sock-puppet or from 4chan “samefagging”. Apologies for the use of the word.
What do you call someone who is convinced you are something you aren’t, based on assumptions 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
Here’s a handy guide to help.
Why do we not have some brilliant mind just fully memorize all of the ins and outs of how these arise and just crush bad faith arguments by simply labeling them in real time rather than engaging with them?
Like, if framed correctly “I don’t engage in logical fallacy. I will immediately call it out, move on, and go back to the relevant topic.”
“Oh you don’t care about starving children?”
“That’s an appeal to emotion. I won’t engage with this obvious logical fallacy. I will address the causes of children suffering to alleviate their suffering.”
“But the cause is illegal immigrants!!!”
“That’s a strawman. I won’t engage with logical fallacies. If you’d like to have a discussion about solving problems, Im all ears, but until we’re done pointing fingers, this conversation is over.”
Removed by mod
That’s a tactic I’ve seen widely used, especially by the assholes we are talking about.
Words have meaning to us, and fascists love that because they are not beholden to any truth at all.
To be clear, almost every argument contains a fallacy in it. Having a fallacy in an argument only introduces the possibility of it being wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.
An example of a valid argument is like:
P1: Socrates is a man P2: All men are mortal C: Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is guaranteed to be correct if the premises are correct. Most scientific arguments are technically invoking a fallacy or are invalid in some way, due to the extrapolation from an experiment in lab conditions to a more general conclusion.
You’re conflating two separate ideas.
A valid arguent needn’t any logical fallacy.
Okay I’m free now.
Im so glad you gave me this gem.
Your response itself relies on several fallacies… false equivalence, hasty generalization, equivocation, a strawman, and non sequitur reasoning, probably more?
You’re incorrectly conflating logical fallacies (which are clear mistakes in reasoning) with inductive uncertainty or experimental limitations in science. Logical fallacies invalidate reasoning structures. Scientific reasoning explicitly includes uncertainty and error correction as fundamental principles; it’s not fallacious; it’s cautious and probabilistic.
Additionally, your example of Socrates is actually demonstrating deductive validity, a different kind of reasoning entirely. Thus, your argument misrepresents logic and science simultaneously. Please correct these fallacies if you want this conversation to proceed productively
Be the change you want to see:) Really, though, it’ll take all of us calling these out.
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.
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
Given what you said, how do we make headway in shaping opinions publicly by disengaging and allowing their opinions to freely go uncontested
To engage you’d have to go into those public spaces, go back to reddit, YouTube comment sections, Facebook groups, etc.
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
Because the powerful and richest have more money and power than you do.
If you’re interested in shaping public opinion I think you need to ask yourself why you are on Lemmy instead of somewhere else?
If you’re interested in shaping public opinion I think you need to ask yourself why you are on Lemmy instead of somewhere else?
(Not OP) Because the “somewhere elses” all have their own fucked up problems, like algorithms that optimise for combativeness, and corporate control of various debates. Lemmy has the potential to provide a viable alternative, and it needs content in order to get big enough to do it. It’s the long game.
Great answer.
the “somewhere elses” all have their own fucked up problems, like algorithms that optimise for combativeness, and corporate control of various debates
I think keeping this in mind is key. When corporations have full control of these debates we realize maybe we’re wasting our time trying to appeal to their algorithms and should just build a new space without it.
Inherently the new space will be a little smaller and reach less people, but we value that because it gives us a bit more room to speak.
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 toy 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.
It’s very helpful in figuring out your own opinions on a topic too. It doesn’t matter much if you convince anyone else.
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.
It’s not about convincing the person toy 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.
I would describe this as the epitome of “bad faith” commenting.
You are not replying to their actual comment, you are grandstanding to the echo chamber.
Except literally not the echo chamber. The intent is to get the message to those not yet brainwashed so they don’t end up in an echo chamber. You can still directly and genuinely rebut their dumbassery. That’s not “bad faith”. The fact that I know the idiot won’t be swayed by the truth, doesn’t change the fact it’s the truth. Addressing idiotic points explicitly is not bad faith.
The intent is to get the message to those not yet brainwashed
You can still directly and genuinely rebut their dumbassery.
I know the idiot won’t be swayed by the truth
You aren’t talking about “good faith” comments.
You’re imagining someone has already made a bad faith comment and you now have justification to be bad faith in return.
Considering the value of a comment on the internet ONLY in relation to the person the comment is in reply to seems weirdly blinkered and bizarrely individualistic.
I think that’s a bit of a false dichotomy.
I never intended to imply you only have to consider this one thing, but I think if a good faith comment exists, it’s one that respects the human on the other side of the screen they’re talking to and assumes good intent.
As human beings in good faith we give the benefit of the doubt and when someone crosses that line well then we do the calculus on how to respond without being a pushover
I would agree with you there are certain bad faith comments out there that aren’t worth responding to in good faith and that’s the scenario OP was trying to point out.
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 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.
It wasn’t a nazi salute, he was just waving
Removed by mod
No we don’t! /s
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.
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!
Gaslighting is lying but not all lying is gaslighting. Think overt propaganda but on a more personal level
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.
Narcissus was so hard done by. The guy clearly was not interested in pursuing a relationship, but everyone was still asking him out all the time. That’s harassment. Rhamnusia shouldn’t have answered Ameinias’ prayer for vengeance. She should have just told Ameinias to get over it and stop staking his self worth on a guy who isn’t interested.
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
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
Nice try, Elon
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”.
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.
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.
I’ve been called a harris voting genocider a couple times now. I’m Australian.
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.
