I'm sayin' it: Fallacies are MORE offensive than profanity or insult

[dragonchild]

For the record, this thought didn't bubble up to the surface of my brain due to a thread here, though it could've turned out that way. Anywhere, really; the Internet is a terrible place. Long story short, I was trying to engage in a serious discussion (yeah I know, my bad) when my argument got threadbombed by some spectacularly obtuse fallacies. Just off the top of my head, in a short span of time:

Begging the question - one counterargument amounted to "because". That's it. "Because".
False equivalence - comparing what I'm working on to an entirely different kind of work, with a wholly different structure and project lifecycle.
False choice - my approach was compared to an absurd extreme which must be prevented by doing the complete opposite, no middle ground
Straw man - couldn't dispute my argument, twisted it into something else, then attacked that instead

Here's the thing that occurred to me. If the replies were spittle-flecked, profanity-ridden rants but at least had logical arguments, the discussion would've been more productive. I'd learn more from, "You're wrong jackass, [well-written rational argument]," than, "Well bless your heart sweetie, but I personally think [blatantly obtuse fallacy] [smiley emoji][smiley emoji][smiley emoji]," ad nauseum.
Not that either is ideal, and I won't say my attitude was exemplary either, but the former just requires a thicker skin. Brush off the insult, gain from the substance and move on. A foul-mouthed individual who at least hits your arguments head-on is contributing; you're gaining something. Fallacies stop all forward momentum, call for a thorough debunking (for controversial topics, an effort that's been made ten thousand times over) and then can just be repeated by the offender. They're also disrespectful in how they're not taking anyone's thoughts seriously; the goal is to prevert them, then "win". Not that either are ideal, but which is worse, a gold bar covered in fresh dog crap that you can just wash off, or an armed time bomb gift-wrapped with a very pretty bow? Yeah, this is arguably a false choice but I'm trying to directly compare the two, not perfect the concept of discourse in a day.

I bring this up because on further thought I found this particularly pertinent to today's toxic social environment -- fallacies are not taboo. I'm not the first to say this, but some trolls have figured out that they can shitpost all day by being politely obtuse while still setting discourse on fire because fallacies are easy to create (they're difficult to avoid, actually, but effort counts), each one is a setback, and there's no effort to prevent them. Not that they can be stopped, but virtually no forums are moderated for fallacies. It's not on the level of threats or harassment, but I don't think they're taken seriously enough. Now, if we were talking about something like music or food, this would all be a big whatever, but not even televised political debates are monitored for them! So it's gotten to the point that I think I need to get this notion out there for others to see, ponder, and possibly adopt: Between an insult with purpose and a fallacy delivered with friendly malice, the latter is more worthy of disdain.

List of fallacies here. If you haven't before I encourage folks to go on a fallacy hunt for kicks; enter hives of scum and villainy like FB, Twitter, YT or DC and the walls would be buzzing with them if they were roaches. They're out of control, yo, and it's because they're considered socially acceptable. I say they shouldn't be.

 

[Interframe]

Well, i mean we're living in a world where Donald Trump is president largely because of "fake news" (and in every possible way: fake news as in false information, and "fake news" as in Trump popularizing the term and using it to his political advantage towards the same people who so easily believe in stuff without fact checking, or don't care to, they just want to be catered to).

Because of all of this, it is no longer taboo to believe in or spread fallacies around like its nothing, because Trump has proven to those people that there are no consequences for believing in or spreading questionable/false information.

 

[Shadybiz]

We are extremely polarized these days. Pointing out when people are wrong usually won't get you anywhere now, if it ever did before. People do not like to admit when they're wrong, and you're not going to get them to change their minds, no matter how many studies and articles you send them to back up your point. It's usually just not worth wasting your time, I've found.

People will only change their minds when they have a personal experience that causes them to change their minds, whether that experience is positive or negative. To them, you're just some guy/girl on the Internet.

Also, don't read the comments on youtube...you'll live longer.

 

[Snack12367]

I disagree with them being more insulting, unless you knew the intent was to offend. The vast majority of people who you argue with online are complete idiots. They aren't malicious, they're just ignorant. The majority don't intentionally make these fallacious arguments.

The thing that really pisses me off is when someone accuses you of one of these or of being disingenuous. 90% of the time they are using that shit incorrectly, but the very use of that term means they should know better.

 

[WyLD iNk]

Once I began becoming active in atheist communities, learning to recognize fallacies was one of the best tools I ever gained. It's helped me in so many more areas of life, but it so completely changed how I engage in any argument or debate that I can't begin to express how infuriating it is to see the same ones pop up so often in regards to the same topics.

I feel ya, dragonchild.

 

[Air]

Profanity isn't really offensive to me. Insults usually come from the same place fallacies do so I think they're in the same ball park personally.

 

[Akela]

Although strangely, the one fallacy people don't seam to care much for is the Fallacy-Fallacy, or Argument from fallacy - the idea that because someone used (or supposedly used) a fallacy in their argument, that argument is automatically false.

Maybe because people on the internet point out fallacies mostly to shut down debates and to feel smug about themselves, not to improve debates.

 

[xvr]

I understand where you're coming from OP. But basically:

The vast majority of people who you argue with online are complete idiots. They aren't malicious, they're just ignorant. The majority don't intentionally make these fallacious arguments.

Click to shrink...

This here. I wouldn't go as fair to say that the vast majority are idiots, just very ignorant about arguments and the logic behind actual debate. For them its always "they're wrong, I'm right, (insert fallacy here why)", instead of actual analysing the argument. Not necessarily stupid, just not attempting to really enter an actual discussion/debate, even though they think they may be.

Context matters however, and which one is more insulting depends very much on the circumstances. On facebook or youtube comments, there's no attempt at genuine discussion so a nicely worded fallacious argument is better than an insulting, but actual argument. Even on era, you'll get a pass on being fallacious for a bit, but being an arse can get you in strife real quick.
Intentions matter, but matter more in certain circles than others.

 

[Dice]

Fallacies offend my brain, myes. I can usually walk off a personal insult, but someone being deliberately obtuse and ignorant is terrible.

 

[dragonchild]

Pointing out when people are wrong usually won't get you anywhere now, if it ever did before.

Click to shrink...

It's not like that was ever a downhill battle. Scientific debates (probably the most fallacy-free by design, albeit far from perfect) can get quite heated as well; few people enjoy being wrong. Some feuds are downright historically infamous. The difference is in how people are wrong. In an argument among colleagues you are expected to, for lack of a better term, "bring it". At the lowest common denominator level, trash talking IS the game.

I'm not approaching this with glittery-eyed optimism that the world will change overnight. I wanted to start by pointing out that people aren't even looking for this at all, and such things as Trump's election are symptoms of this problem, not the catalyst. That guy would lose to a used teabag by 70 points with a modicum of reason among the public, but the only real countermeasure used today against fallacies is debunking, which is way too inefficient. We need to at least try inoculation. But before fallacies (or their effectiveness) can be reduced they need to be ostracized, and to get to that point people need to better understand what they are, and to get there. . . they need to know they exist. Yet I don't think there's any systemic effort at any level to educate this concept.

The vast majority of people who you argue with online are complete idiots. They aren't malicious, they're just ignorant.

Click to shrink...

To quote Blazing Saddles, you know. . . morons. Doesn't make it OK, any more than bigotry founded in ignorance. Not on the same level, but I refuse to accept it because this is critical to one's civic duty. You can't be a responsible citizen if you're complicit in spreading logical garbage.

And while I mentioned this in passing, effort counts. I don't expect well-meaning simpletons to become savvy logicians at any point in the future. I'm willing to grade on a curve, and I believe even something is better than nothing. I realized relatively few people even know what a fallacy is, so they wouldn't even know to take one seriously, let alone avoid making their own. I haven't sorted out to what extent that was a problem before, but I believe it's a legitimately serious social problem now. People are sensitive to insults and foul language; they are almost completely blind to fallacies. This is a social engineering intrusion on a level far beyond any hacked servers; I don't think we can afford to be discouraged by the prospect of futility. And I mean this isn't even a call to arms, just starting by bringing an idea a step forward -- if someone hits you with an insult and a fallacy, if you're going to respond at all, the focus should be on the latter, if it isn't already.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

If you haven't before I encourage folks to go on a fallacy hunt for kicks

Click to shrink...

Although strangely, the one fallacy people don't seam to care much for is the Fallacy-Fallacy, or Argument from fallacy - the idea that because someone used (or supposedly used) a fallacy in their argument, that argument is automatically false.

Maybe because people on the internet point out fallacies mostly to shut down debates and to feel smug about themselves, not to improve debates.

Click to shrink...

And there are plenty of absolutely misapplied fallacy callouts as well, particularly with respect to attempting to defeat any corrections/criticism by crying "ad hominem!" (when false assumptions are pointed out) or "appeal to authority!" (when scientific research is presented). It's almost as though some folks just learned about fallacies while browsing Wikipedia and felt that they were now superior beings, armed with nukes as opposed to slings and stones, and had to wreak havoc to prove it to the world.

 

[dragonchild]

On facebook or youtube comments, there's no attempt at genuine discussion so a nicely worded fallacious argument is better than an insulting, but actual argument.

Click to shrink...

See, I disagree. When you insult someone, you're impacting one person. When you use a fallacy, you're corrupting an idea, which can have more wide-reaching effects. Insult me and you've limited your damage to one person who DGAF. Spread a terrible idea with eloquence and you can do some real damage because with few exceptions, no one's really looking for that.

I'm aware that people aren't always looking for discourse. Not everything needs to be super-serious. But while I'm fine with trash-talking your favorite sports team or video game (FYI -- it sucks and so does your mom), I can still flip on my fallacy filter when needed. People who don't even know what a fallacy is can't do that. And even if this is beyond the capacity of even 50% of the population, for sake of argument, whatever improvement on the other 50% would, over time, be enough to do things like. . . I dunno. . . swing elections?

It's almost as though some folks just learned about fallacies while browsing Wikipedia and felt that they were now superior beings

Click to shrink...

I don't deny that's unpleasant to witness but it's something. Give a kid a new toy and of course they'll be excited. A number of them get over that phase, but bear in mind that to some people, awareness of fallacies is literally an epiphany. Your entire social landscape changes, dramatically and permanently. You see people who long deceived you for what they are, read propaganda pieces and feel invulnerable to their intentions, watch TV ads and get empowered by their ineffectiveness. It's hard not to get excited about acquiring real power; the question is how long it takes for them to mature out of that.

Seeing a lot of complaints about misidentified fallacies but the vast majority of discourse is below that level. I've also witnessed plenty of awkward first steps, people just learning what fallacies are and trying to detect them and screwing things up. And yeah, not all intentions are good. But you gotta start somewhere. Every master pianist at some point made their parents contemplate stabbing out their eardrums with scissors.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

I had a conversation with a 'bothsider' on Twitch yesterday. He mentioned Seth Rich, instead of being like how dumb are you to fucking believe that, I simply linked him an article debunking that from a reputable source and he read it and said "Oh looks like that's not a real thing huh?" and we moved on to other topics.

Not everyone is like that though and it really depends on the medium. In forums, you can call people out for being fallacious because there is this idea of asynchronous communication going on. And you can lay out your thoughts in a succinct way. When it comes to in person, when people argue "that's how it's always been" or "yeah but I'm just talking about x" and we're really talking about y, I mention that that isn't logical, and explain why. But I also have issues talking with people who have bizarre takes on things that they got from the Internet and never actually looked into themselves. I almost lost a friend over her being an antivaxxer because she had a friend who had a reaction to the MMR vaccine when she was a baby.

 

[ry-dog]

And there are plenty of absolutely misapplied fallacy callouts as well, particularly with respect to attempting to defeat any corrections/criticism by crying "ad hominem!" (when false assumptions are pointed out) or "appeal to authority!" (when scientific research is presented). It's almost as though some folks just learned about fallacies while browsing Wikipedia and felt that they were now superior beings, armed with nukes as opposed to slings and stones, and had to wreak havoc to prove it to the world.

Click to shrink...

It's been a while since high-school philosophy, but isn't there even a fallacy for this very thing haha

 

[julia crawford]

This is not a good position to have because it depends on people's argumentation skills, whereas profanity or insults are not a matter of ability in the same way this is.

 

[Creatchee]

Although strangely, the one fallacy people don't seam to care much for is the Fallacy-Fallacy, or Argument from fallacy - the idea that because someone used (or supposedly used) a fallacy in their argument, that argument is automatically false.

Maybe because people on the internet point out fallacies mostly to shut down debates and to feel smug about themselves, not to improve debates.

Click to shrink...

This right here. I've seen far too many people use fallacy callouts in lieu of actual debate and arguments with solid reasoning and evidence. My personal favorite is when somebody cries "ad hominem!" as if you're not allowed to point out that somebody is a piece of shit IN ADDITION TO having a strong argument against their point of view.

 

[Sinneslöschen]

Perhaps the biggest mistake is believing anyone wants to have a real honest debate about anything. Most people just want to blow off steam and then have their opinions validated. If you disagree with them, they will take it as a personal attack and immediately move to position it as an us vs them scenario where you represent whatever group they find most reprehensible. It's really very dumb.

There are communities out there that have respectful and honest debates, but they tend to be more narrow in focus.

 

[dragonchild]

I've seen far too many people use fallacy callouts in lieu of actual debate and arguments with solid reasoning and evidence.

Click to shrink...

I'd argue there's not enough. It's not a good thing to have a debate shut down by misidentification of fallacy, and I'm aware not all intentions are good, but if you're seeing that a lot in your circles, you're better off than most. From what I see the vast majority of fallacies aren't even contested at all. And bear in mind I'm not limiting my scope to the Internet -- sorry if I gave that impression. News "experts", politicians, advertisements, "educational" shows, etc. are full of them. From a collective standpoint, we should be seeing a lot more people making baby's first steps at identifying fallacies than political astroturfing going completely unopposed or being painstakingly debunked at a pace that can't hope to match. I do see an increase in "fact-checking" but that's not the same thing.

Perhaps the biggest mistake is believing anyone wants to have a real honest debate about anything.

Click to shrink...

I can't make anyone be intellectually honest, but you realize that's not even my goal, right? I'm talking about changing perceptions. Profanity-laced insults are generally considered socially unacceptable but there's no shortage of them, either. However, people can see them for what they are. Fallacies aren't regarded as anything -- I've perceived a complete ignorance to their very existence. They are trickier to spot and the increase in smugness would be annoying, but any improvement in getting fallacies on the public's radar might have tangible benefits down the road. It won't eradicate jerks but nothing pragmatic aspires to do that.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

This right here. I've seen far too many people use fallacy callouts in lieu of actual debate and arguments with solid reasoning and evidence. My personal favorite is when somebody cries "ad hominem!" as if you're not allowed to point out that somebody is a piece of shit IN ADDITION TO having a strong argument against their point of view.

Click to shrink...

Yeah as long as you're not saying they're wrong BECAUSE they're a piece of shit I don't see what the issue is.

 

[Rookhelm]

The "whataboutisms" bother me the most. You could make the most logical statement in the world, and the other person goes "well what about X"?

No one actually argues their own side or their own opinion...most debates (online anyway) ultimately lead to who can point out the biggest hypocritical statement of the other person first.

 

[Trigonometrize]

The "whataboutisms" bother me the most. You could make the most logical statement in the world, and the other person goes "well what about X"?

No one actually argues their own side or their own opinion...most debates (online anyway) ultimately lead to who can point out the biggest hypocritical statement of the other person first.

Click to shrink...

The problem is it's often a bit more complicated than just trying to point out hypocrisy. For instance, let's say we're having a discussion about abortion. You might say "I think the cut off point for abortions should be when the fetus' heart starts beating because that's when life begins." I would be otherwise stuck. I can't really directly attack that position in any way I know of cause it's completely abstract and axiomatic. We're at the level where no basic facts about the philosophy of life can inform your belief. So the way I go about this is what you might call "whataboutism" (and I would contest the use of the term there but that's another discussion): I would tell you "So, if that is where life begins, then that must mean the only reason it's a moral wrong to kill someone is because their heart is beating. What if I go into cardiac arrest right now? Do I lose all moral consideration? If you would be interested enough, would you take out a gun and shoot me for pleasure instead of trying to save me?"

All your arguments ever stem from values that becoming harder and harder to directly attack as you go further to the base level because they're more and more rooted in your subjective experience that you just accept. If we can't agree on those values, the only point of recourse I have is to revert to "whataboutism" to test you for consistency and see if your values combined with your logic hold up. It's a fallacy ultimately because you can easily say yes, I lose all moral consideration when I go into cardiac arrest and we're back to square one, but it's usually a nice jumping off point for a conversation, so I tend to love it.

 

[Mr. Bad Example]

I wouldn't mind people pointing out fallacies if a.) they weren't wrong half the time, and b.) the pointing-out wasn't deployed with the smug air of a Yu-Gi-Oh player announcing that you've just activated his trap card.

 

[Straight Edge]

Internet message boards amount to: straw man, whattaboutism, and bad faith.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Most people who quote 'fallacies' haven't done actual logic a day of their life.

 

[Rookhelm]

The problem is it's often a bit more complicated than just trying to point out hypocrisy. For instance, let's say we're having a discussion about abortion. You might say "I think the cut off point for abortions should be when the fetus' heart starts beating because that's when life begins." I would be otherwise stuck. I can't really directly attack that position in any way I know of cause it's completely abstract and axiomatic. We're at the level where no basic facts about the philosophy of life can inform your belief. So the way I go about this is what you might call "whataboutism" (and I would contest the use of the term there but that's another discussion): I would tell you "So, if that is where life begins, then that must mean the only reason it's a moral wrong to kill someone is because their heart is beating. What if I go into cardiac arrest right now? Do I lose all moral consideration? If you would be interested enough, would you take out a gun and shoot me for pleasure instead of trying to save me?"

All your arguments ever stem from values that becoming harder and harder to directly attack as you go further to the base level because they're more and more rooted in your subjective experience that you just accept. If we can't agree on those values, the only point of recourse I have is to revert to "whataboutism" to test you for consistency and see if your values combined with your logic hold up. It's a fallacy ultimately because you can easily say yes, I lose all moral consideration when I go into cardiac arrest and we're back to square one, but it's usually a nice jumping off point for a conversation, so I tend to love it.

Click to shrink...

while I suppose your example is a whataboutism, I'd be happy if debates sorta dove into the argument like that. You used a whataboutism to dig deeper into the very concept being discussed, not derail into something unrelated. "But her emails" is a an example I think. Just because one person committed a crime doesn't absolve other people from committing crimes.

 

[UltraGashInferno]

Most people who quote 'fallacies' haven't done actual logic a day of their life.

Click to shrink...

i think a lot of people take logic courses and think they've found a win button for arguing. And just start blindly worshipping logic because they think (or know) it can be easily manipulated to meet their needs.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Without fallacy-ridden takes, ERA would probably have a couple dozen posts a day.

It's a universal issue we all fall Prey to without proper enforcement of logical processes. We ain't on a debate team so none of it matters.

 

[Tesseract]

i feel your pain, the best you can do is keep the battle of ideas in play, be unmovable.

you'll get banned sometimes for it, but that's the way it is.

 

[dragonchild]

Most people who quote 'fallacies' haven't done actual logic a day of their life.

Click to shrink...

Without fallacy-ridden takes, ERA would probably have a couple dozen posts a day.

Click to shrink...

All this says is that the status quo sucks, which is my point. I don't see that as a reason to do nothing; I see that as a reason to do anything more than nothing.

 

[deli]

I feel like you're not going to get anywhere debating anything with anyone if you claim to be intellectually superior to them because you read a couple of articles on wikipedia.

Also, formalised debate in a micro-context doesn't really help anything and just serves as ego-stroking wankery most of the time. Policing the free spontaneous exchange of opinions, often about sensitive topics that actually effect people, with logical rules that under no circumstance can be broken is trivialising the human element that is often behind these discussions. So I don't really see what this rallying cry for 'rationality' is actually aiming at. This is isn't a card game.

 

[spam musubi]

We are extremely polarized these days. Pointing out when people are wrong usually won't get you anywhere now, if it ever did before. People do not like to admit when they're wrong, and you're not going to get them to change their minds, no matter how many studies and articles you send them to back up your point. It's usually just not worth wasting your time, I've found.

People will only change their minds when they have a personal experience that causes them to change their minds, whether that experience is positive or negative. To them, you're just some guy/girl on the Internet.

Also, don't read the comments on youtube...you'll live longer.

Click to shrink...

More so than just the polarization, we live in a world where every fringe view can find a community of like minded people and YouTube channels that reinforce their views etc, so they have no reason to ever engage truth and can live in their bubble.

Though I'm sure alt righters think the same way about era.

 

[CopperPuppy]

Well, in another thread I called out someone for defending Roman Polanski and he refused to respond to any of my points because I used "fuck" and "shit." So clearly some people are sensitive about language. Profanity worse than rape to him, I guess. Psst: I know that's a fallacy.

I also agree that whataboutism generally is becoming a problem, but would also posit that it's being overused. Hypocrisy, standards, and principles are all important, and attempting to assert any of the aforementioned quickly draws a "whataboutism" rebuke for an easy counterpoint. People often just don't know what they're talking about and it has become a buzz word accordingly. It is swiftly and regrettably losing its meaning.

Also, this:

Most people who quote 'fallacies' haven't done actual logic a day of their life.

Click to shrink...

 

[Trigonometrize]

while I suppose your example is a whataboutism, I'd be happy if debates sorta dove into the argument like that. You used a whataboutism to dig deeper into the very concept being discussed, not derail into something unrelated. "But her emails" is a an example I think. Just because one person committed a crime doesn't absolve other people from committing crimes.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, if someone is just bringing up random things like the Soviet propaganda did in the Cold War where the term comes from, then that's 100% whataboutism and pretty bad.

 

[Xenon]

I would say character assassination in lieu of debate irritates me the most. In that respect I would say Trump is more of a exaggerated reflection of this country than an exception.

 

[Gotchaye]

I mean, of course fallacies aren't taboo. Most people don't recognize them, lots of them are pretty subjective, and they're rarely intentional. Profanity is easy -- there's a list of words that are profane and if you just don't use those words you're safe. It's not about acceptability, it's about capability. People do seem to get upset over arguments they think are really bad -- that's often why they start using profanity! It's just that people don't agree on which arguments are really bad.

It's worth stressing that this is a lot more complicated than consulting a fallacy checklist and making sure an argument isn't doing any of those things. Two of the fallacies you mention are highly subjective. Who's to say whether an equivalence is false? There's almost always a lot of underlying implicit theorizing going on. It's not like anyone actually makes arguments by laying out the complete set of assumptions required to logic their way to their conclusions. Straw manning is similar. Is it a straw man or is it a demonstration that the principle your argument depends on leads to absurd results in other cases?

Some of what you're describing is also just a necessary condition for ideological pluralism. We don't demand that everyone have the same beliefs. You've got to be able to agree to disagree. Often, something like "well bless your heart, but I think [something else]" isn't intended as an argument against your position. It's just an expression of disagreement. It's not as if we're required to be able to produce counter-arguments on the spot to justifiably disagree with a position. Arguments are complicated -- it often means something if your intuition is telling you that an argument's conclusion is very wrong even if you can't spot where that argument is going wrong. It seems perfectly natural that in a context where people aren't showing up in order to have a specific argument that they just give their position and move on without arguing for it.

But, sure, it would be good if more people were more aware of their lack of ability to reason certain things out for themselves. I just don't think you get there by having us decide that bad arguments are shameful, because there's inadequate agreement as to which arguments are bad. What you need first is much better education, I think.

 

[Professor Quixote]

Edit* - Great post ^, Gotchaye

I'd also add that repeatedly cherry-picking/nitpicking an unimportant oversight in an otherwise thoughtful post is obnoxious and thread de-railing. I guess that is red herring-esque.

Completely made up example:
1: Millenials are so fat and unhealthy. Today, my generation is much more active and not glued to their phones, which is why we are healthier.

2: Actually, while Millenials may be glued to their phones, they have the lowest obesity rates of all generational demos and are much healthier. Studies have shown that Millenials are the most active, have the best diets, by far eating more vegetables than all other demos. There is a reason we are the avocado toast generation.

1: You do know that avocado is a fruit, not a vegetable?

2: Yeah, you're right. I always associate avocados with vegetables for some reason. But my point still stands.

1: What point? That you don't know the difference between a fruit and vegetable?

2: That Millenials aren't unhealthier than your generation.

1: How can Millenials be healthier if they don't even know the difference between fruits and vegetables?

2: Is that a rhetorical question orrrrrr....

 

[Deleted member 19844]

I feel ya, OP. If I had to choose, I'd choose the rude person with good arguments over the nice person who can't present a good argument.

Unfortunately I see threads / discussions derailed by both, so I can't say which one is more negatively impactful in general.

 

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I'd argue there's not enough. It's not a good thing to have a debate shut down by misidentification of fallacy, and I'm aware not all intentions are good, but if you're seeing that a lot in your circles, you're better off than most. From what I see the vast majority of fallacies aren't even contested at all. And bear in mind I'm not limiting my scope to the Internet -- sorry if I gave that impression. News "experts", politicians, advertisements, "educational" shows, etc. are full of them. From a collective standpoint, we should be seeing a lot more people making baby's first steps at identifying fallacies than political astroturfing going completely unopposed or being painstakingly debunked at a pace that can't hope to match. I do see an increase in "fact-checking" but that's not the same thing.

Click to shrink...

The fallacy fallacy isn't just about misidentification of fallacies, it's about using even correctly identified fallacies to shut down debate instead of using actual counter arguments. Logical fallacies are a scalpel for dissecting arguments, not a club for bludgeoning your opponent.

 

[Giever]

I agree. I have to remind myself to stop from participating in online discussions because it's so prevalent. There's just so little point.

 

[-PXG-]

Willful ignorance and general lack of empathy is what irritates me more than anything. I'd rather be called a nigger a thousand times than hear someone go on about something when they have absolutely no clue as to what they're talking about.

 

[dragonchild]

I mean, of course fallacies aren't taboo. Most people don't recognize them

Click to shrink...

Effect, meet cause.

It's worth stressing that this is a lot more complicated than consulting a fallacy checklist and making sure an argument isn't doing any of those things.

Click to shrink...

Again, I'm not striving for perfection. I'm pointing out that even in cases where fallacies are being blatantly abused, they're flying through unchecked because there's no negative feedback mechanism at all. The mere existence of a counter-example isn't any justification to go, "Aw, well, shucks, let's better not do anything because nothing in life is universal," because the status quo sure is swell innit. There's a difference between acknowledging that problems are hard because life is complicated and thus falling well short of perfection, and inaction in the face of unchecked proliferation of a social engineering vector due to complete lack of systemic countermeasure. So I'm really not concerned with any of these "well it's not that simple" arguments, as valid as they are, when they're presented as-is, without further contribution. It's as easy to point out a challenge as throw tomatoes at a chalkboard.

What you need first is much better education, I think.

Click to shrink...

That's certainly a mutually compatible goal.

 

[Don Fluffles]

Logical fallacies are basically candy-coated lies and the weapon of the right.

 

[xvr]

See, I disagree. When you insult someone, you're impacting one person. When you use a fallacy, you're corrupting an idea, which can have more wide-reaching effects. Insult me and you've limited your damage to one person who DGAF. Spread a terrible idea with eloquence and you can do some real damage because with few exceptions, no one's really looking for that.

I'm aware that people aren't always looking for discourse. Not everything needs to be super-serious. But while I'm fine with trash-talking your favorite sports team or video game (FYI -- it sucks and so does your mom), I can still flip on my fallacy filter when needed. People who don't even know what a fallacy is can't do that. And even if this is beyond the capacity of even 50% of the population, for sake of argument, whatever improvement on the other 50% would, over time, be enough to do things like. . . I dunno. . . swing elections?

Click to shrink...

I think I see your point, that fallacious arguments are more damaging to society as a whole rather than an honest, but insulting reply.
I won't argue with you on this one. Insults may result in people growing thicker skin eventually, while fallacies will only let people justify things they believe incorrectly.
How you enable all sorts of people to see these fallacies though, I have no clue unfortunately. Education seems the best bet, but not sure they'd ever take these sorts of things up in compulsory classes in most countries.

 

[NineConsonants]

P - > Q
~P_____
~Q

 

[Fat4all]

P - > Q
~P_____
~Q

Click to shrink...

is this some sort of penis joke

 

[Inkblots]

is this some sort of penis joke

Click to shrink...

It's a loss edit!

 

[NineConsonants]

It's a loss edit!

Click to shrink...

?

 

[okayfrog]

It all comes down to personal preference. I'd much rather have internet discussions with people using fallacies over people who use insults or don't respect what I'm saying any day of the week.

 

[Conkersbadfurday]

I agree with you, OP. That kind of argument gets you nowhere and is annoying as hell.

"I don't like this song. Shame, since I was looking forward to you."
"THAT MEANS YOU ARE NOT A TRUE FAN"

Is basically on every song posted on youtube ever.

 

[dragonchild]

I'd much rather have internet discussions with people using fallacies over people who use insults or don't respect what I'm saying any day of the week.

Click to shrink...

Thing is, how is using fallacies against you respecting what you say?

"Looking at this data, I think market demand supports more avocado on pizzas"
"Your position is absurd and our President hasn't endorsed avocado pizzas. We have pizzas with avocado on them and child rapists in this world; why do you support this? What's next, pizzas with razor blades? Can you prove that more avocado pizzas won't bankrupt every pizza joint in the country?"

When faced with a blizzard of fallacies, I don't detect any sense of respect for the person, or the opinion, or discourse. These days, use of fallacies is so brazen, so concentrated, so deliberate that I see a clear malice for civility. Where's the respect in that?