!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
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.”
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
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
"Thought-terminating clichés"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9
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.
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.
Man that's such a strawman, you're completely misrepresenting why they bring up fallacies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Here is a great piece someone put together a while ago which goes through many of the techniques bad actors use.
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.
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.
Appeal to fallacies is the self-important idiot's way out of replying to someone's argument.
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.
Innuendo studios has a nice series of videos on this on YouTube
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
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.
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?
Also, vote manipulation. Basically they spin up a bunch of alts across different instances and boost/demote posts and comments in an attempt to steer discourse toward their agenda.
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.
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.
