I am aware of
- Sea-lioning
- Gaslighting
- Gish-Galloping
- Dogpiling
I want to know I theres any others I’m not aware of
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
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.
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.
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…
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
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
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It wasn’t a nazi salute, he was just waving
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.
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.
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
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
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.”
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.
How about asking why you lose the argument instead of trying to label all this crap.
It’s like you’re watching your 12th “how to build a full stack application” video while they’ve already finished their 2nd project.
End of the day what they use to succeed is effort. We don’t. Look at the answers here telling you it’s pointless to engage. That’s why they succeed online. Those people
Is this a joke? Analysis of techniques would be literally asking why an argument were lost, if an argument was indeed lost. Of course you’re making a lot of assumptions there, and I agree you’re not making an effort
Analysis just leads you further down the incorrect path. The answer is in the title. “Overwhelm” the only answer is we all need to make more content and to share and disseminate it. You see someone commenting against one of these bad faith actors, we need to overwhelm them. We need to get better at having fun while doing it. Inside jokes, memes whatever. Just have fun and make 5 messages for every 1 they attempt. We need to act, not study. By hoping we can study this stuff and figure out how to logically argue against them will only lead to more people disengaging because it’s impossible and not fun.
shhh…
it takes 10 gallons of intelligent discussion to dilute an ounce of stupid and the OC was about 400 gallons of pure unfiltered retarded stupidity.
they did have a point though, sometimes the only way to win is to not play.
Innuendo studios has a nice series of videos on this on YouTube
I was going to recommend this very thing.
- Brillo-Padding
- Tire-Kicking
- Backyarding
- Barney-Rubbling
Come on, no one’s ever overwhelmed you in bad faith online.
