No Stupid Questions

Strawmanning because they won't or can't understand your argument, mistaking the map for the place usually because of equivocating on vaguely understood or multiple definitions, non-sequetor this is where someone just yaps for awhile based on the crap that falls out of their head based on the words they heard but didn't get the point and is barely tracking

There is a series "The Alt Right Playbook" that covers a lot of bad faith and manipulative tactics, many of which are used online.

There's another type I see often here with these kinds of assholes. It's intentionally misconstruing or reaching the wrong conclusions about what the other person is saying. It's a form of strawmanning. They'll move the argument just a bit to the side, drop a false zinger that could fit the original narrative if you squint hard enough, and accuse you of saying or doing horrible shit when in reality you're saying something else.

And guess what, the people reading do not give a shit. They'll just dogpile if you try to fight it because Lemmy is wonderful like that and people here are so nice and critical.

Nice try, Elon

Online arguements take ten times the energy to put in than to exit out, any well thought arguement could be shut down just by ignoring it, or making up reasons to avoid confronting it (whataboutism for example)

I have never seen an online discussion where gaslighting was used. People usually just learned the term and they think it's a synonym for lying.

I see ad hominem very often as well as strawmanning. Specifically on lemmy people will say tankie/auth or irl they'll say woke/liberal and then use those insults to further strawman argumenents. Specifically multiple times I have said "hey I voted Kamala but her policies deeply concern me", and people responded with "Uhh how dare you not vote Kamala and openly declare you hate democracy, freedom, and trans people".

• Brillo-Padding
• Tire-Kicking
• Backyarding
• Barney-Rubbling

Appeal to Fallacy.

It might not be a fallacy.

A fallacy doesn't make an argument wrong.

There are degrees of fallacies.

Claiming a statement is wrong because there might be a fallacy is a thought-ending argument. There's more nuance and relatability in rhetoric. Refusing to engage because someone's using a fallacy is reasonable, but calling it by name isn't a magic spell that forces someone to throw in the towel.

Cherry picking is probably one of the most egregious

You can make a university-level essay on a subject, and people will identify one tiny irrelevant detail they disagree with and ignore the overall point

False dichotomy - Assuming that because someone doesn’t agree with one viewpoint, they must fully support the opposite. Framing the issue as if there are only two mutually exclusive positions, when in fact there may be many shades in between.
Strawmanning - Misrepresenting someone’s argument - usually by exaggerating, distorting, or taking it out of context - so it’s easier to attack or refute.
Ad hominem - Attacking the character, motives, or other traits of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Reductionism - The tendency to reduce every complex issue to a single cause - like blaming everything on capitalism, fascism, patriarchy, etc. - while ignoring other contributing factors.
Moving the goalposts - Changing the criteria of an argument or shifting its focus once the original point has been addressed or challenged - usually to avoid conceding.
Hasty generalizations - Treating entire groups as if they’re uniform, attributing a trait or behavior of some individuals to all members of that group.
Oversimplification - Ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in most issues, reducing them to overly simple terms or black-and-white thinking.

Online debate is a waste of time. You can somewhat short-circuit the bad-faith stuff by arguing values instead of facts or policy.

For example, if you say that the State has no right to remove trans kids from their parents, you've made a legal argument that's vulnerable to all the bad faith and you may even be technically wrong. However if you argue that you trust parents to decide what's best over the State, there is nothing to argue about. Bonus, you might actually get some real talk out of reactionaries.

Come on, no one's ever overwhelmed you in bad faith online.

Moving the goalposts.

Butwhatabout.

Appeal to hypocrisy is big.

I think the most common thing I see online and offline is constantly adding more sources to the discussion to the point that the other person feels they can’t know anything. My grandmother does this with her nonsense and pseudo-intellectual books. Just because I haven’t read “why inner city black people have guns 3” doesn’t mean I can’t not be a racist.

Whataboutism