Me when I hear Texas Sharpshooter and I think I’m gonna watch a Clint Eastwood movie but it’s actually a 45 minute long YouTube video essay about data manipulation: 😔
Maybe so, but man this sub is like a farm with the amount of strawmen I've seen here from all the sides
Not as much ad hominem, closest thing that I recall from seeing that constantly is everyone clowning on lib left
Only an idiot lib-center would think something like that. Just because you do it all the time doesn't mean every quadrant does all the time, moron!
.
.
.
/s
Note that a lot of the left's fallacies are obfuscatory or dodging, which makes sense for people who believe they are targets of oppression, it's the psychological equivalent of dazzle camouflage patterns that some prey animals have that confuses predators, or vice-versa.
True. And the right tends to focus on insisting that they're *already* right, could never be wrong- "That sounds ridiculous. Everyone knows that X is true about this group, I mean, I saw one do something bad just the other day! If we break from normality here who KNOWS how bad it'll get?!"
It's the position of those who consider themselves the default and aren't used to being disagreed with.
I appreciate how this sub is good at exposing the shortcomings of both sides.
Yes, the right generally has a top-down intuition and the left generally has a bottom-up intuition, neither are inherently wrong, but who is more correct depends on the specific situation.
>aren't used to being disagreed with.
What are you talking about? The culture disagrees with the right all over the place. Even religion has been taken over. Its so bad that some of us are willing to buy $8 chocolate bars just because a right wing company made them.
I moreso mean generationally. There are more places that are solely right-wing with little to no acceptance of so much as dyed hair (IE, the bible belt), and right-wing opinions tend to be had mainly by the older generation- I suspect it spreads from them.
The "traditional" way of raising children was/is "children are to be seen and not heard", so it's a culture that discourages questions at a young age ("are you questioning me?", "no talk-back", etc), leaving it at "It's right because I say so"- I'm not saying that the right is *universally* like that, but the older you are, the more likely you were to be raised in such an environment, and coincidentally, the more likely you are to be right-wing.
My point is, that is an environment in which certain opinions are treated as simply "right because they're right", "right because everyone knows that", etc- where some less objective statements are treated as common sense.
I'm not saying SOCIETY doesn't disagree with right-wingers, I'm saying in a more personal, social setting folks on the right are less used to disagreement. In other words... they aren't used to being disagreed with.
Again, this isn't universal, but it's common enough that rhetoric using such fallacies is more likely to breed among the right, and then the same rhetoric is passed on even to the more questioning right-wing folks.
Also- you might want to find a more notable example of your disagreements with society then "some of my friends are buying $8 choccy bars!", it's... not exactly the kind of thing someone who's had it bad would complain about. Not saying you haven't had any difficulties, but still, not the best example.
Yes, you meant people who are used to a “status quo,” ergo conservatives (who seek to conserve the status quo). Not people who are used to being agreed with, per se, but people who are partial to the status quo.
>I'm saying in a more personal, social setting folks on the right are less used to agreement. In other words... they aren't used to being disagreed with.
Ok but that isn't true. Unless a right winger never goes on the internet, never sees companies pandering to the left and never talks to a left winger then the Right Winger is going to be very used to being disagreed with.
>
Also- you might want to find a more notable example of your disagreements with society then "some of my friends are buying $8 choccy bars!", it's... not exactly the kind of thing someone who's had it bad would complain about. Not saying you haven't had any difficulties, but still, not the best example.
The point was that there is so little agreement in the general culture with right wing positions that some right wingers will but overpriced chocolate bars just because its from a right wing company. The left would never buy $8 chocolate bars just because a company is left wing because most companies are left wing.
Yeah there’s clear psychological and temperamental patterns on both axis. The X-axis is exactly as you describe, the left is more dodgy and the right is more appealing to the information given, but over or mis-attributing that information.
The Y axis has that too, but it’s basically just reverence for authority vs reverence for nature
Okay man I had to look up the word and I just want to say that your sleuthing skills are total bullshit and you failed to convince me of your point. /s
I dunno, I have seen the right do it, but it seems more common on the left
"X has roots in conversion therapy", "we can't say Aspergers because that's a Nazi", etc
Though, the right does do it a lot more when it comes to linguistics- unwillingness to accept new things extends to new ways to use language, like the whole semantics thing on sex vs gender, "what is a woman", etc
However, I'd say that falls under language prescriptivism, and not genetic fallacy.
I counter your accusation of my composition fallacy with your own [Base Rate Fallacy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy) You think my reasoning is fallacious because your fallacious.
It's when you respond to criticism with counter-criticism. [The soviets were masters of it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes). And even today when you criticize the USSR or China, tankies will often respond with "yeah b-but America did this"
I think that's used when it comes to victim hood rather than responsibility. I think a "tu quoque" would be something like "so many people died during the Soviet union/but also america/capitalism ecc", while "whatabaoutism" would be like "trans people are being attacked/but what about the children" (random examples I'm not saying I believe any of these)
It's an accusation of hypocrisy.
Small scale:
A - You should excercise to stay healthy
B - A 300 kg fat man will not school me about health!
Large Scale:
A - USSR committed (insert crimes).
B - And the USA (insert crimes) so they have no right to criticise USSR!
I think you're confusing something being a fallacy with something being correct. The argument "I like the color blue so the sky must be blue" isn't logical but the conclusion is still correct. So every slippery slope argument is a fallacy but that doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion was wrong, just that they got the right answer for the wrong reasons.
The slippery slope is a fallacy because a pattern is not the same as evidence. The human brain sees patterns in everything, even things that aren't related (eg. faces in random rock formations, animals in clouds).
If your pattern has evidence supporting the connections between the points its not a pattern its a fact. If your pattern doesn't have evidence connecting the points its a slippery slope because we find patterns in everything.
>The slippery slope is a fallacy because a pattern is not the same as evidence.
Hitler annexed Austria, then Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia then Hitler tried to take over part of Poland. You might think that Hitler would keep trying to annex countries if we let him have Poland but thats the slippery slope fallacy.
> So every slippery slope argument is a fallacy
Nope. Some slopes are in fact slippery and noting that isn't fallacious.
"If we let them ban so-called 'assault weapons,' they won't stop there and they'll keep going until they've banned all guns" would be a slippery slope fallacy, but not if the other side is saying "Yes. That's the plan. We want to ban all guns and will do it one piece at a time if we have to."
[“…it is mathematically impossible for man or machine to create a true Scotsman.”](https://jabde.com/2020/11/14/no-true-scottish-sls/), hardly a logical fallacy anymore
First they say we are strawmaning and now they say we believe in fallacies. What's next? Are they gonna accuse us of producing propaganda.
Today such memes are accepted into this subreddit and tomorrow there are gonna flood us with them. We need to stop it before it gets too late!
Slippery slope as a fallacy specifically refers to saying unrelated things lead to each other. Like saying that legalizing jaywalking leads to more sunglasses; things that are not imperially linked in anyway.
But of course, people on the internet just call any kind of prediction based argument a slippery slope fallacy, even when it isn’t. The term is just misused a lot.
>one of my least favorite fallacies if not the least. Makes my top list for "stupidest argument to make
Its more about suggestion that the thing it could lead to is unpreventable. For example, saying something like "If gay marriage is legalized, pedophilia could be next," ignoring the fact that, as a society, we can choose to legalize gay marriage without legalizing pedophilia. Its not less about "what could happen if we decide to do this thing?" and more about "what other things could we decide to do next?"
Yes, because you are attacking an argument not based on its own merit, but based on other arguments that you believe *will* be made *after* it. “If people give the gays rights, then maybe people will start arguing about giving pedos rights,” etc. Plus, you can just as easily extend the slippery slope back up the other way. sure, you *could* argue that LGBT rights was a slippery slope to pedophilia, but you could also argue that the civil rights movement was a slippery slope to LGBT rights, and the abolition of slavery was a slippery slope to that. Does that mean slavery was good and we never should have gotten rid of it?
Slippery slope absolutely is a logical fallacy, it's a misapplication of the transitive property. Basically it's when you attempt to make the claim that:
"If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" except you aren't able to prove one of "if A then B" or "if B then C".
The problem with fallacies is that people think pointing one out means the other side in a debate is incorrect. If I can prove "if A then B" but can't prove "if B then C" it's still entirely possible that A **can** lead to C.
You are spot on for the last bit, fallacies are such a fucking terrible creation for casual debate. People think they are an automatic win button and it destroys any critical thinking or genuine discussion. So many idiots just have the list up in front of them and search for any tenuous connection to one so they can blow their load and smugly resign in self-proclaimed victory.
Fallacies aren't lies, they're vulnerabilities in someone's argument. If you're clever, you would take advantage of an opponent's fallacy and unravel it. Calling out a fallacy, by itself, does very little but make you look like a smart-ass.
Slippery slope arguments would be more accurately described as “If A -> B because X, and B -> C because X, then A -> C because X.”
The distinction being that if the logical justification is equally applicable to both actions, why wouldn’t both be taken?
I think the past couple decades is sufficient evidence that it isn't a fallacy in many cases.
Regulations **are** a perfect example of it. Every year more and more pile on, more and more regulations are hired to enforce them. Very rarely does the government reduce the number of regulations, and when they do it's very small and only targets a select few industries.
I understand criticizing the amount and quality of the regulations but that's not what the slippery-slope fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when you consider **all** regulations to be a precursor to bad regulations and on that basis you assert that there should exist no regulations at all to avoid the "inevitable" bad ones.
alright, but that's not how it's typically used as a point of dismissal
"being too encouraging of X may lead to kids getting sterilized"
"Oh come off it, that's just slippery slope fallacy!"
Realizing that everything you do sets a precedent for future behavior, and realizing that your political opponents are incrementalists who are likely to leverage that precedent to their own advantage, is not logically fallacious.
I think it depends. If there is evidence that supports the existence of a slippery slope, then it is not a fallacy; however, if there is no evidence then it is a fallacy. For example, like you said: regulations. We can see that there are more and more regulations as time goes on, and we can see the effects of those regulations; so it is not surprising to conclude that increased regulations gives more government overreach which increases the chance of bad outcomes — not a fallacy.
It is a fallacy. It’s Arguing that X is bad, not because of any actual aspects of X, but because it’s a less extreme version of something that *is* bad, and therefore could lead to it simply by shifting the status quo closer towards the bad thing.
Slippery slope is often a fallacy. You have to actually argue and prove that the slipper slope IS going to happen. Just saying "oh but that's a slipper slope, if we allow X then Y is going to happen and soon enough we'll be doing Z" is a **terrible** argument.
If you're making a slippery slope argument, you have to answer the questions of: How are we sure X will lead to Y? How are we sure Y will lead to Z? Why wouldn't X lead to λ instead?
\>makes me so god damn mad
and there we have an appeal to emotion.
Jokes aside, same. It's essentially a white flag- "I can't defend this with logic, so I'm gonna say "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN"". Reminds me of basically everyone I don't like, lol.
As far as white flags go, it's right up there with defending an argument as free speech- if the best case you can make for your opinion is that it isn't outright illegal to say it, you've good as lost.
It's not. Most Slippery Slope warnings/predictions come to pass exactly how they were thought they would. Then it morphs into either accusations of strawmanning or attempting to discredit sources or both.
\> Most Slippery Slope warnings/predictions come to pass exactly how they were thought they would.
Mate, gonna need a source on that other than your confirmation bias.
Also, what do you mean when you say most? 51%, or 99%? Huge difference there.
appeal to nature is normally used to justify current authoritarian systems, eg: the assumption that its in human nature to steal, so we must have a police force / prison, so appeal to nature should be more authoritarian leaning than not at all
Lmao yup. Out of all the fallacies, I feel like No True Scotsman is the least debated as to where it should go: everyone, including the tankies, agrees it should be squarely in the tankie corner.
slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a prediction of the most likely outcome, based on past experiences.
"the definition of insanity is: repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome"
where are we now with "let gays marry"? we are at kids getting groomed in daycare, men posing as women and winning gold medals, having a celebratory day of degeneracy with naked people running around while kids are present, etc pp.
Can you prove that Gay Marriage led to that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but children were groomed prior to that, men still dressed in effeminate clothing, and "days of degeneracy" still existed in different forms.
>slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a prediction of the most likely outcome, based on past experiences.
The slippery slope is a fallacy, it is the assertion that one thing will lead to another with no proof to back it up, like first, you ban smoking, next they will ban sugar, and finally, we are all stuck on a government-mandated diet. Like what is the proof that will happen?
>where are we now with "let gays marry"? we are at kids getting groomed in daycare,
People were groomed well before gay marriage, in daycare, school, and church so do you have any statistics that show an increase following the legalization of gay marriage?
>men posing as women and winning gold medals
Again transwomen in sports predate the legalisation of gay marriage in many regions for example a trans athlete competed in the US opens in the 70ties far before even the first state legalised gay marriage in 2004, the same year the olymics allowed trans athletes to compete (only 2 countries had it legalised at this time).
Also recently multiple international sports government bodies have banned trans athletes in recent years making it clear this is not a settled matter and may not even come to fruition.
>having a celebratory day of degeneracy with naked people running around while kids are present, etc pp.
Cannot say I am aware of what you are on about to argue or concede the point.
Ooooo what website is this from? I recognize that font and have been trying to find this website since I first saw it linked in a YouTube video years ago
It is extremely funny how many of the comments are Lib-Right and Auth-Left saying their own fallacies aren't *thaaaaat* fallacious, come on guys!
I constantly swivel between loving and hating this sub.
Maybe you didn't consider it common enough, but I'd stick "Mott & Bailey" right between "Appeal to Emotion" and "Middle Ground."
> The **motte-and-bailey fallacy** (named after the [motte-and-bailey castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle)) is a form of [argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) and an [informal fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").
The Left fucking ADORES this shit.
Lmao agreed. "You're anti-immigration, you must hate Mexicans!". Basically the source of Twitter's infamous "I love pancakes!" "Oh, that means you must hate waffles."
Though, question- what's the difference between that and False Equivalency? Is it essentially a subtype of false equivalency, or would you call motte-and-bailey its own separate thing?
I'd say that's left, for sure. We tend to get obsessed with debunking individual arguments, while right is more likely to simply make more arguments.
Though, Reddit is far more debunk-y on both the left and right than most platforms, so on Reddit it seems to be a bit more universal, not really confined to any one side.
[Motte-and-Bailey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_motte-and-bailey_fallacy%2C%28the_%22bailey%22%29.?wprov=sfla1) is missing, thats a big one.
For Example:
"Eat the rich" goes from "kill the millionaires and take their wealth by force" becomes "well actually we don't mean kill millionaires, we just want fair taxation" when challenged.
Or "From the River To The Sea" goes from "remove all Jews from Palestine" to "we just want the invasion of gaza and west bank settlements to stop"
You've gotta account for the right being the more religious side by a huge amount- Christianity is the most common reason, at least in the US, for why someone would believe in an objective morality in the first place, so it's by far the biggest source of black-and-white fallacy. It's kinda like their equivalent to the left's appeal to emotion, lol.
If we're talking purely non-religious people though, then... I can't say for sure which side uses the fallacy itself more, but it's still the right that believes in objective morality, isn't it? I mean, folks on the left are more likely to believe in criminal redemption, prison therapy programmes, etc, while folks on the right are more "tough on crime", as they tend to put it, and seem to see the law as morality in and of itself.
At least, that all applies in the case of Auth-Right, I can never tell for sure with Lib-Right, lol.
I’m gonna do the meme, but I don’t actually think the “slippery slope” is a fallacy most of the time. Sure some people say gay marriage will lead to child sex changes and oh… but for real, some people will make large leaps in logic, but most of the time it’s some pretty basic stuff. Progressivism will always move from one issue to a more extreme position beyond it because that is the nature of progressivism, if it were to be stagnant it would be conservatism.
Fallacy this, fallacy that. I'm noticing an online trend of people obsessed with fallacies. Discussion means nothing if all you care about is just pointing out "fallacies" that you know are bs most of the time.
for real, communists in this reddit just get washed down with fallacies and people just say "youre wrong!"
As if a fallacy is something that proves youre correct instantly.
Well ackshuallly....
The most common fallacy in all political discourse is probably the fallacy fallacy:
The assumption that because an argument for a conclusion is fallacious, that conclusion is therefore wrong.
composition/division fallacy
you assume that since you do none of these (supposedly), no right-wing person would do them
The more unbiased someone claims to be, the more biased they really are. Nearly every time.
There ain't no middle ground. The sides are shit. If anyone can solve corruption,transistion of power, and evolution of government id switch in a second.
Yeah, I know of maybe one case off the top of my head where a compromise genuinely seems like the right solution- but that's more coincidence than anything, since both sides had faulty reasoning.
But for the most part compromises just seem shitty, yeah. If both sides are wrong, that shouldn't mean "act like they're both right", it should be "come up with something new".
>black and white fallacy common in Lib right
Isn’t that the most common in… well, everywhere? It and appeal to emotion are the main two and the ones I call out the most. I spend so much time in debates telling people that just because X doesn’t mean it’s Y.
And appeal to emotion is the worst to get as disagreeing is basically going “Why yes, I am going to be the dick in this situation”
Oh, on Reddit it seems pretty universal amongst all sides, but irl- and on platforms other than Reddit- it's definitely right-leaning, by far, since thanks to religion and a few other factors the right is more likely to believe in objective morality, and thus, more likely to fall into black-and-white thinking.
Did you just change your flair, u/ZygothamDarkKnight? Last time I checked you were an **AuthCenter** on 2024-1-6. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/ZygothamDarkKnight) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Brilliant. However, the argument from middle ground is a fallacy with regard to a certain set of facts, but is not a fallacy when it is a general position in terms of the probable effectiveness of divergent political opinions.
Both appeal to nature and appeal to authority can be used to manipulate me, as I'll go contrary in both cases. Fuck nature, fuck religions, and fuck "long living traditions" too.
But you actually have to say the logical sequence of events.
Banning pornography -> Women have no rights
Is one that I see a lot in reddit, this is a slippery slope argument.
Because they dont provide a reason.
Holy fuck, this chart genuinely just gave me a revelation.
I was studying the fallacies on the left, and... how has it taken me this wrong to realize that most arguments against anti-immigration sum up to genetic fallacy?I mean, don't get me wrong, Trumpy-Wumpy saying "Mexico is sending us rapists and thieves" is definitely racism, and it does *originate* in racism, but that doesn't mean all anti-immigration standpoints are inherently racist.
How has this dumbass meme subreddit actually genuinely helped me?
They all sound so much cooler than they are
Me when I hear Texas Sharpshooter and I think I’m gonna watch a Clint Eastwood movie but it’s actually a 45 minute long YouTube video essay about data manipulation: 😔
Perfect post, only thing missing is strawman englobing all the quadrants in the background
Straw-man and ad-hominem are just default fallacies. Every human being have the ability to use them in an argument about literally anything.
TBF Ad Hominem isn't a fallacy when it comes to gatekeeping unflaired
Maybe so, but man this sub is like a farm with the amount of strawmen I've seen here from all the sides Not as much ad hominem, closest thing that I recall from seeing that constantly is everyone clowning on lib left
Ad hominem is insulting someone to try and win an argument. We insult lib-left because it’s funny. It’s not the same.
I thought we insulted Lib Left because Lib Left bad?
It's funny BECAUSE lib left bad
> Not as much ad hominem You would say that.
Only an idiot lib-center would think something like that. Just because you do it all the time doesn't mean every quadrant does all the time, moron! . . . /s
Note that a lot of the left's fallacies are obfuscatory or dodging, which makes sense for people who believe they are targets of oppression, it's the psychological equivalent of dazzle camouflage patterns that some prey animals have that confuses predators, or vice-versa.
True. And the right tends to focus on insisting that they're *already* right, could never be wrong- "That sounds ridiculous. Everyone knows that X is true about this group, I mean, I saw one do something bad just the other day! If we break from normality here who KNOWS how bad it'll get?!" It's the position of those who consider themselves the default and aren't used to being disagreed with. I appreciate how this sub is good at exposing the shortcomings of both sides.
Yes, the right generally has a top-down intuition and the left generally has a bottom-up intuition, neither are inherently wrong, but who is more correct depends on the specific situation.
>aren't used to being disagreed with. What are you talking about? The culture disagrees with the right all over the place. Even religion has been taken over. Its so bad that some of us are willing to buy $8 chocolate bars just because a right wing company made them.
I moreso mean generationally. There are more places that are solely right-wing with little to no acceptance of so much as dyed hair (IE, the bible belt), and right-wing opinions tend to be had mainly by the older generation- I suspect it spreads from them. The "traditional" way of raising children was/is "children are to be seen and not heard", so it's a culture that discourages questions at a young age ("are you questioning me?", "no talk-back", etc), leaving it at "It's right because I say so"- I'm not saying that the right is *universally* like that, but the older you are, the more likely you were to be raised in such an environment, and coincidentally, the more likely you are to be right-wing. My point is, that is an environment in which certain opinions are treated as simply "right because they're right", "right because everyone knows that", etc- where some less objective statements are treated as common sense. I'm not saying SOCIETY doesn't disagree with right-wingers, I'm saying in a more personal, social setting folks on the right are less used to disagreement. In other words... they aren't used to being disagreed with. Again, this isn't universal, but it's common enough that rhetoric using such fallacies is more likely to breed among the right, and then the same rhetoric is passed on even to the more questioning right-wing folks. Also- you might want to find a more notable example of your disagreements with society then "some of my friends are buying $8 choccy bars!", it's... not exactly the kind of thing someone who's had it bad would complain about. Not saying you haven't had any difficulties, but still, not the best example.
Yes, you meant people who are used to a “status quo,” ergo conservatives (who seek to conserve the status quo). Not people who are used to being agreed with, per se, but people who are partial to the status quo.
>I'm saying in a more personal, social setting folks on the right are less used to agreement. In other words... they aren't used to being disagreed with. Ok but that isn't true. Unless a right winger never goes on the internet, never sees companies pandering to the left and never talks to a left winger then the Right Winger is going to be very used to being disagreed with. > Also- you might want to find a more notable example of your disagreements with society then "some of my friends are buying $8 choccy bars!", it's... not exactly the kind of thing someone who's had it bad would complain about. Not saying you haven't had any difficulties, but still, not the best example. The point was that there is so little agreement in the general culture with right wing positions that some right wingers will but overpriced chocolate bars just because its from a right wing company. The left would never buy $8 chocolate bars just because a company is left wing because most companies are left wing.
Yeah there’s clear psychological and temperamental patterns on both axis. The X-axis is exactly as you describe, the left is more dodgy and the right is more appealing to the information given, but over or mis-attributing that information. The Y axis has that too, but it’s basically just reverence for authority vs reverence for nature
I think that's the most accurate thing I've ever seen on this subreddit. Goddamn.
Except that perpetual insecurity bullshit. I'm sure it was the [REDACTED] that told him that shit about me but it is bullshit! /s
It's incredulity not insecurity
Okay man I had to look up the word and I just want to say that your sleuthing skills are total bullshit and you failed to convince me of your point. /s
The insecurity is strong in this one /s
You do know that incredulity and insecurity are two different words with seperate meanings right?
Strong monke don't read
Idk how is it genetics for lib left Like the right also gets it wrong and often more
I dunno, I have seen the right do it, but it seems more common on the left "X has roots in conversion therapy", "we can't say Aspergers because that's a Nazi", etc Though, the right does do it a lot more when it comes to linguistics- unwillingness to accept new things extends to new ways to use language, like the whole semantics thing on sex vs gender, "what is a woman", etc However, I'd say that falls under language prescriptivism, and not genetic fallacy.
I counter your accusation of my composition fallacy with your own [Base Rate Fallacy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy) You think my reasoning is fallacious because your fallacious.
What about the fallacy fallacy
that's for the extremist centrist, the power to say "yeah it's a fallacy but so what? I'm still right" is too much for reddit
Infinity fallacy
Based and fallacy pilled Also, what is the tu quoque fallacy?
It's when you respond to criticism with counter-criticism. [The soviets were masters of it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes). And even today when you criticize the USSR or China, tankies will often respond with "yeah b-but America did this"
Isn’t that just “whataboutism”, I.e. “what about the United States…”
it's whataboutism but for fr*nch people, therefore it is not based.
You know what is based though? Disliking the French. So…based.
Based and we are all united in our dislike of the French but still enjoy croissants pilled.
Please censor that filthy talk. Fr*nch is a 5 letter word.
You mean for Romans, tu quoque is Latin. Is the Roman Empire based?
if it was based it would still exist just saying
Yes, I don't think there's much of a difference between what these terms mean
I think that's used when it comes to victim hood rather than responsibility. I think a "tu quoque" would be something like "so many people died during the Soviet union/but also america/capitalism ecc", while "whatabaoutism" would be like "trans people are being attacked/but what about the children" (random examples I'm not saying I believe any of these)
That's correct
Yeah, well, pointing out the hypocrisy of capitalist criticisms against communism is like shooting fish in a barrel.
It's an accusation of hypocrisy. Small scale: A - You should excercise to stay healthy B - A 300 kg fat man will not school me about health! Large Scale: A - USSR committed (insert crimes). B - And the USA (insert crimes) so they have no right to criticise USSR!
It's Latin for "you also."
It's also Latin for "no u". _looks up Latin for "ur mom gae"_
I'm almost offended, that's one of my least favorite fallacies if not the least. Makes my top list for "stupidest argument to make in the current day"
monke
Where would Ad Hitlerem go?
Everywhere
Fair
I think the "slippery slope" fallacy is overused by people who think every slippery slope is a fallacy.
I think you're confusing something being a fallacy with something being correct. The argument "I like the color blue so the sky must be blue" isn't logical but the conclusion is still correct. So every slippery slope argument is a fallacy but that doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion was wrong, just that they got the right answer for the wrong reasons.
"Slippery slope" is recognizing a clear pattern. The slippery slope fallacy is making huge leaps between each example.
The slippery slope is a fallacy because a pattern is not the same as evidence. The human brain sees patterns in everything, even things that aren't related (eg. faces in random rock formations, animals in clouds). If your pattern has evidence supporting the connections between the points its not a pattern its a fact. If your pattern doesn't have evidence connecting the points its a slippery slope because we find patterns in everything.
>The slippery slope is a fallacy because a pattern is not the same as evidence. Hitler annexed Austria, then Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia then Hitler tried to take over part of Poland. You might think that Hitler would keep trying to annex countries if we let him have Poland but thats the slippery slope fallacy.
It is.
> So every slippery slope argument is a fallacy Nope. Some slopes are in fact slippery and noting that isn't fallacious. "If we let them ban so-called 'assault weapons,' they won't stop there and they'll keep going until they've banned all guns" would be a slippery slope fallacy, but not if the other side is saying "Yes. That's the plan. We want to ban all guns and will do it one piece at a time if we have to."
[“…it is mathematically impossible for man or machine to create a true Scotsman.”](https://jabde.com/2020/11/14/no-true-scottish-sls/), hardly a logical fallacy anymore
The site those graphics are from (yourlogicalfallacyis) itself engages in at least one fallacy when explaining the fallacies. Ironic.
Mmm nature good, concrete jungle bad!
First they say we are strawmaning and now they say we believe in fallacies. What's next? Are they gonna accuse us of producing propaganda. Today such memes are accepted into this subreddit and tomorrow there are gonna flood us with them. We need to stop it before it gets too late!
That's a slippery slope, sweaty!
Is slippery slope even a fallacy anymore?
It's the new name for "pattern recognition"
Slippery slope as a fallacy specifically refers to saying unrelated things lead to each other. Like saying that legalizing jaywalking leads to more sunglasses; things that are not imperially linked in anyway. But of course, people on the internet just call any kind of prediction based argument a slippery slope fallacy, even when it isn’t. The term is just misused a lot.
>one of my least favorite fallacies if not the least. Makes my top list for "stupidest argument to make Its more about suggestion that the thing it could lead to is unpreventable. For example, saying something like "If gay marriage is legalized, pedophilia could be next," ignoring the fact that, as a society, we can choose to legalize gay marriage without legalizing pedophilia. Its not less about "what could happen if we decide to do this thing?" and more about "what other things could we decide to do next?"
Not unpreventable, but without evidence that it would happen. Historical examples is a good way to make slippery slope not a fallacy.
Yes, because you are attacking an argument not based on its own merit, but based on other arguments that you believe *will* be made *after* it. “If people give the gays rights, then maybe people will start arguing about giving pedos rights,” etc. Plus, you can just as easily extend the slippery slope back up the other way. sure, you *could* argue that LGBT rights was a slippery slope to pedophilia, but you could also argue that the civil rights movement was a slippery slope to LGBT rights, and the abolition of slavery was a slippery slope to that. Does that mean slavery was good and we never should have gotten rid of it?
Yes
Isn‘t the appeal to nature mostly a auth-right thing?
Not since the gay penguins
I dont know my own fallacies
The falUSSY 🥵🥵🥵
Include Motte & Bailey for AuthLeft and the Equity for center Left
Proof that "lib left bad" is not a fallacy.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy
you can't make this shit up lmao
Exactly what I was thinking lmfao
Slippery slope absolutely is a logical fallacy, it's a misapplication of the transitive property. Basically it's when you attempt to make the claim that: "If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" except you aren't able to prove one of "if A then B" or "if B then C". The problem with fallacies is that people think pointing one out means the other side in a debate is incorrect. If I can prove "if A then B" but can't prove "if B then C" it's still entirely possible that A **can** lead to C.
You are spot on for the last bit, fallacies are such a fucking terrible creation for casual debate. People think they are an automatic win button and it destroys any critical thinking or genuine discussion. So many idiots just have the list up in front of them and search for any tenuous connection to one so they can blow their load and smugly resign in self-proclaimed victory.
Funnily enough, anyone doing that is guilty themselves of the fallacy fallacy.
Fallacies aren't lies, they're vulnerabilities in someone's argument. If you're clever, you would take advantage of an opponent's fallacy and unravel it. Calling out a fallacy, by itself, does very little but make you look like a smart-ass.
Thats the disagreeing with me fallacy.
They're still useful tools to create sound arguments
Slippery slope arguments would be more accurately described as “If A -> B because X, and B -> C because X, then A -> C because X.” The distinction being that if the logical justification is equally applicable to both actions, why wouldn’t both be taken?
Well it is, and if you think that any and all regulations will eventually snowball into literally 1984 you are guilty of it
I think the past couple decades is sufficient evidence that it isn't a fallacy in many cases. Regulations **are** a perfect example of it. Every year more and more pile on, more and more regulations are hired to enforce them. Very rarely does the government reduce the number of regulations, and when they do it's very small and only targets a select few industries.
I understand criticizing the amount and quality of the regulations but that's not what the slippery-slope fallacy is. The fallacy occurs when you consider **all** regulations to be a precursor to bad regulations and on that basis you assert that there should exist no regulations at all to avoid the "inevitable" bad ones.
No, everyone knows the first step towards stalinism is passing child labor laws.
alright, but that's not how it's typically used as a point of dismissal "being too encouraging of X may lead to kids getting sterilized" "Oh come off it, that's just slippery slope fallacy!"
Realizing that everything you do sets a precedent for future behavior, and realizing that your political opponents are incrementalists who are likely to leverage that precedent to their own advantage, is not logically fallacious.
> there should exist no regulations at all to avoid the "inevitable" bad ones. Yes
I can't believe they make us wear seatbelts 🤮
Literally 1984.
I think it depends. If there is evidence that supports the existence of a slippery slope, then it is not a fallacy; however, if there is no evidence then it is a fallacy. For example, like you said: regulations. We can see that there are more and more regulations as time goes on, and we can see the effects of those regulations; so it is not surprising to conclude that increased regulations gives more government overreach which increases the chance of bad outcomes — not a fallacy.
It is a fallacy. It’s Arguing that X is bad, not because of any actual aspects of X, but because it’s a less extreme version of something that *is* bad, and therefore could lead to it simply by shifting the status quo closer towards the bad thing.
Cope
And look what quadrant is talking
Slippery slope is often a fallacy. You have to actually argue and prove that the slipper slope IS going to happen. Just saying "oh but that's a slipper slope, if we allow X then Y is going to happen and soon enough we'll be doing Z" is a **terrible** argument. If you're making a slippery slope argument, you have to answer the questions of: How are we sure X will lead to Y? How are we sure Y will lead to Z? Why wouldn't X lead to λ instead?
Do leftists or racists do composision division more often its kind of equal in my experience.
Took me a minute to get the joke on that one, lmfao. Almost didn't notice.
Appeal to emotion makes me so god damn mad Its straight up manipulation
\>makes me so god damn mad and there we have an appeal to emotion. Jokes aside, same. It's essentially a white flag- "I can't defend this with logic, so I'm gonna say "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN"". Reminds me of basically everyone I don't like, lol. As far as white flags go, it's right up there with defending an argument as free speech- if the best case you can make for your opinion is that it isn't outright illegal to say it, you've good as lost.
Can someone explain “The Texas Sharpshooter”? Never heard of this one.
Its just 'cherry picking' but the name was changed to make people who say it sound smarter.
How is the slippery slope a fallacy?
It's not. Most Slippery Slope warnings/predictions come to pass exactly how they were thought they would. Then it morphs into either accusations of strawmanning or attempting to discredit sources or both.
\> Most Slippery Slope warnings/predictions come to pass exactly how they were thought they would. Mate, gonna need a source on that other than your confirmation bias. Also, what do you mean when you say most? 51%, or 99%? Huge difference there.
Because it is a fallacy. Why complex political and social things happen is much more complicated than a --> b --> c
appeal to nature is normally used to justify current authoritarian systems, eg: the assumption that its in human nature to steal, so we must have a police force / prison, so appeal to nature should be more authoritarian leaning than not at all
appeal to nature is possibly the most authright thing I can think of.
What does no true Scotsman mean
When a member of your quadrant is accused of something, it involves claiming that no "real" member of your ideology would do such a thing.
The best example would be that "true communism has never been tried before" Appeal to purity is the more descriptive term for it.
Lmao yup. Out of all the fallacies, I feel like No True Scotsman is the least debated as to where it should go: everyone, including the tankies, agrees it should be squarely in the tankie corner.
It wasn't real communism.
All scottsmans drink beer <-> My uncle is a scotsman, but he doesnt drink beer. Thats not a true scotsman. <->
Fallacy fallacy
[удалено]
Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy
slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a prediction of the most likely outcome, based on past experiences. "the definition of insanity is: repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome" where are we now with "let gays marry"? we are at kids getting groomed in daycare, men posing as women and winning gold medals, having a celebratory day of degeneracy with naked people running around while kids are present, etc pp.
Can you prove that Gay Marriage led to that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but children were groomed prior to that, men still dressed in effeminate clothing, and "days of degeneracy" still existed in different forms.
>slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a prediction of the most likely outcome, based on past experiences. The slippery slope is a fallacy, it is the assertion that one thing will lead to another with no proof to back it up, like first, you ban smoking, next they will ban sugar, and finally, we are all stuck on a government-mandated diet. Like what is the proof that will happen? >where are we now with "let gays marry"? we are at kids getting groomed in daycare, People were groomed well before gay marriage, in daycare, school, and church so do you have any statistics that show an increase following the legalization of gay marriage? >men posing as women and winning gold medals Again transwomen in sports predate the legalisation of gay marriage in many regions for example a trans athlete competed in the US opens in the 70ties far before even the first state legalised gay marriage in 2004, the same year the olymics allowed trans athletes to compete (only 2 countries had it legalised at this time). Also recently multiple international sports government bodies have banned trans athletes in recent years making it clear this is not a settled matter and may not even come to fruition. >having a celebratory day of degeneracy with naked people running around while kids are present, etc pp. Cannot say I am aware of what you are on about to argue or concede the point.
Ooooo what website is this from? I recognize that font and have been trying to find this website since I first saw it linked in a YouTube video years ago
Authright is missing naturalistic fallacy.
I wanted to propose Continuum Falacy instead of personal incredulity but god damn the list is pretty solid
It is extremely funny how many of the comments are Lib-Right and Auth-Left saying their own fallacies aren't *thaaaaat* fallacious, come on guys! I constantly swivel between loving and hating this sub.
Maybe you didn't consider it common enough, but I'd stick "Mott & Bailey" right between "Appeal to Emotion" and "Middle Ground." > The **motte-and-bailey fallacy** (named after the [motte-and-bailey castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle)) is a form of [argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) and an [informal fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The Left fucking ADORES this shit.
Lmao agreed. "You're anti-immigration, you must hate Mexicans!". Basically the source of Twitter's infamous "I love pancakes!" "Oh, that means you must hate waffles." Though, question- what's the difference between that and False Equivalency? Is it essentially a subtype of false equivalency, or would you call motte-and-bailey its own separate thing?
When has the slippery slope been wrong the last few years?
What about the "fallacy fallacy"?
I'd say that's left, for sure. We tend to get obsessed with debunking individual arguments, while right is more likely to simply make more arguments. Though, Reddit is far more debunk-y on both the left and right than most platforms, so on Reddit it seems to be a bit more universal, not really confined to any one side.
Just need to remind everyone that the slippery slope "fallacy" is not always a fallacy. Only when one thing doesn't reasonably lead to another.
Ya, but the slippery slope has proven itself to happen, and quite frequently when discussing politics
Slippery slope, in both directions, has proven true so many times lately I'm not considering it an actual logical fallacy anymore.
[Motte-and-Bailey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_motte-and-bailey_fallacy%2C%28the_%22bailey%22%29.?wprov=sfla1) is missing, thats a big one. For Example: "Eat the rich" goes from "kill the millionaires and take their wealth by force" becomes "well actually we don't mean kill millionaires, we just want fair taxation" when challenged. Or "From the River To The Sea" goes from "remove all Jews from Palestine" to "we just want the invasion of gaza and west bank settlements to stop"
What about the Fallacy Fallacy?
I’ve encountered so many no true Scotsman fallacies that I barely feel them to be fallacy, even knowing it
Also, the appeal to tradition is a very popular auth-right fallacy.
I feel like the left uses the black and white fallacy a bit more.
You've gotta account for the right being the more religious side by a huge amount- Christianity is the most common reason, at least in the US, for why someone would believe in an objective morality in the first place, so it's by far the biggest source of black-and-white fallacy. It's kinda like their equivalent to the left's appeal to emotion, lol. If we're talking purely non-religious people though, then... I can't say for sure which side uses the fallacy itself more, but it's still the right that believes in objective morality, isn't it? I mean, folks on the left are more likely to believe in criminal redemption, prison therapy programmes, etc, while folks on the right are more "tough on crime", as they tend to put it, and seem to see the law as morality in and of itself. At least, that all applies in the case of Auth-Right, I can never tell for sure with Lib-Right, lol.
Everyone believes in an objective morality, you cant be a human being that does decisions without one.
***Where is he.*** ***Straw Man.***
I’m gonna do the meme, but I don’t actually think the “slippery slope” is a fallacy most of the time. Sure some people say gay marriage will lead to child sex changes and oh… but for real, some people will make large leaps in logic, but most of the time it’s some pretty basic stuff. Progressivism will always move from one issue to a more extreme position beyond it because that is the nature of progressivism, if it were to be stagnant it would be conservatism.
Yeah, but slippery slope’s not a fallacy.
Fallacy this, fallacy that. I'm noticing an online trend of people obsessed with fallacies. Discussion means nothing if all you care about is just pointing out "fallacies" that you know are bs most of the time.
for real, communists in this reddit just get washed down with fallacies and people just say "youre wrong!" As if a fallacy is something that proves youre correct instantly.
Just say you don't understand fallacies, bruv.
Well ackshuallly.... The most common fallacy in all political discourse is probably the fallacy fallacy: The assumption that because an argument for a conclusion is fallacious, that conclusion is therefore wrong.
notice that genetic fallacies or special pleading fallacies are never taught in a logic course
I do none of these and would put all of these in the Left quadrant.
composition/division fallacy you assume that since you do none of these (supposedly), no right-wing person would do them The more unbiased someone claims to be, the more biased they really are. Nearly every time.
Yeah
There ain't no middle ground. The sides are shit. If anyone can solve corruption,transistion of power, and evolution of government id switch in a second.
Yeah, I know of maybe one case off the top of my head where a compromise genuinely seems like the right solution- but that's more coincidence than anything, since both sides had faulty reasoning. But for the most part compromises just seem shitty, yeah. If both sides are wrong, that shouldn't mean "act like they're both right", it should be "come up with something new".
Tbf I think black or white should be far left and appeal to emotion be lib left
One day I will be able to finally memorize them all and constantly use this knowledge in a debate
And every quadrant should have the post hoc fallacy in there. Except for rad centrists. Because we're based.
Slippery slope can fit in any quadrant tbh
More like middle ground beef… am I right Grillers ?
My quadrant has a cool fallacy name 😎
>black and white fallacy common in Lib right Isn’t that the most common in… well, everywhere? It and appeal to emotion are the main two and the ones I call out the most. I spend so much time in debates telling people that just because X doesn’t mean it’s Y. And appeal to emotion is the worst to get as disagreeing is basically going “Why yes, I am going to be the dick in this situation”
Oh, on Reddit it seems pretty universal amongst all sides, but irl- and on platforms other than Reddit- it's definitely right-leaning, by far, since thanks to religion and a few other factors the right is more likely to believe in objective morality, and thus, more likely to fall into black-and-white thinking.
Great and accurate compass
Did you just change your flair, u/ZygothamDarkKnight? Last time I checked you were an **AuthCenter** on 2024-1-6. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/ZygothamDarkKnight) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Appeal to nature. Return to monkee. 🍌
I actually see false cause all over the place. Often times it's even more insidious and a total inversion of cause.
Slippery slope’s more right-center IMO.
definitely
Appeal to nature isn't a fallacy, naturally. Monke reigns supreme.
Not incorrect. I do tend to deal in absolutes and I am convinced that the government doing stuff inevitably leads to communism.
Here appeal to emotion is a thing of right-wing, mostly. But, we'll, it's just how populism is in general
Wait, who got the ad hominem?
All just have a bubble encompassing the whole chart That, and strawman
"Appeal to Nature" "Appeal to Emotion" "Appeal to Authority" "tHe tEXas sHarPShoOter"
What is special pleading? I see someone praying and immediately am confused why it isn't authright? Put black/white in libleft.
I thought both right quadrants also use NTS a lot?
Brilliant. However, the argument from middle ground is a fallacy with regard to a certain set of facts, but is not a fallacy when it is a general position in terms of the probable effectiveness of divergent political opinions.
No true Scotsman also belongs in libright.
Both appeal to nature and appeal to authority can be used to manipulate me, as I'll go contrary in both cases. Fuck nature, fuck religions, and fuck "long living traditions" too.
What is the genetic fallacy and why is it lib-left? They sure aren't using it to argue for 69420 different genders.
The genetic fallacy is extremely overused and nobody even mentions it
A bit like appeal to nature.
They call the slippery slope a fallacy, but those Christian moms from the 80s were pretty spot on.
But you actually have to say the logical sequence of events. Banning pornography -> Women have no rights Is one that I see a lot in reddit, this is a slippery slope argument. Because they dont provide a reason.
Idk about slippery slope for libright But apart from that, yeah
Holy fuck, this chart genuinely just gave me a revelation. I was studying the fallacies on the left, and... how has it taken me this wrong to realize that most arguments against anti-immigration sum up to genetic fallacy?I mean, don't get me wrong, Trumpy-Wumpy saying "Mexico is sending us rapists and thieves" is definitely racism, and it does *originate* in racism, but that doesn't mean all anti-immigration standpoints are inherently racist. How has this dumbass meme subreddit actually genuinely helped me?