WCB's List of Logical Fallacies

New (to me) mistakes / tricks I've noticed when arguing online

I studied philosophy in college, both at the undergraduate level and the graduate level. I had a little bit of exposure to rhetoric and the importance of rational arguments with clear definitions. I really enjoyed that aspect of my philosophy courses, and it’s allowed me to pretty quickly parse out logical or rhetorical mistakes in people’s arguments. Most of them fall within the traditional list of logical fallacies that I learned about in my first rhetoric class. But there are some new ones that I’ve started to notice. At least they are new to me! An expert on this topic might argue that they are simply variations on existing ones, and to that I’ll simply claim ignorance. So without further adieu, here are the four new logical fallacies that I’ve noticed in online discourse.

Feigned Ignorance, or an Appeal to Your Imbecility

This one is very common. You’ll make a totally reasonable comment or statement, referencing a commonly known thing that everyone understands to be true (or at least an established side to a long-running argument), and someone will act as though it is something that they’ve never even heard of. It’s as though they walk through life in blinkered amazement, learning new facts and theories anew every day. They think it’s the height of intellectual jiu-jitsu to ask for sources. I believe that Morgoth coined the term “Hatchlings” for folks who use this technique. For instance:

• Statement: eco-terrorism is getting out of hand, and it’s not appropriate that they destroy priceless works of art

• Arguing from Feigned Ignorance: what are you talking about? I’ve never heard of any environmental activists destroying works of art. Can you provide links to some of these instances?

An Appeal to the Exception

Most of WCB’s Fallacies are politically agnostic, but this one is found almost exclusively from left-wing people. I don’t have any proof but my instinct is that this is because most progressives have an aversion to making any kind of judgement calls, even ones that aren’t condemnatory. What is the Appeal to the Exception? It’s when you make a statement in an argument that “Most of X are Y,” or “X is almost always bigger than Y,” or something to that effect, and a midwit’s idea of a counterargument is to say, “No, my niece isn’t like that,” or, “Twenty years ago I had lunch in a town where that wasn’t the case,” as though their single exception in any way refutes your point or is even relevant. For instance:

• Statement: White people like to spend time in the outdoors more than do Black people

• Appeal to the Exception: That’s not true, I had a Black friend in college that spent every weekend up in the mountains and could hike any White guy into the ground

The Psychoanalysis Pivot, or Arguing from Your True Intentions

This one has become so common that I’ve seen everyone from sitting politicians to commenters on YouTube use it. It’s when someone hears your argument, jumps right over any kind of logical counterargument, and lands straight into theorizing on some underlying personality disorder that gave rise to such heresy. I find myself doing this at times, especially when I’m in a heated argument, but I honestly try to avoid it. It’s become an almost reflexive act for idiots in the Senate and Congress, from both parties. For instance:

• Statement: defense spending in the US is way out of proportion to our population and any actual threats we face, and there is probably some room for cuts

• Pivot to Psychoanalyzing: of course you’d say that we should lower defense spending, because you hate the military and resent all the hyper-masculine men doing all the hyper-masculine things that you are too cowardly to do yourself

The Fallacy of a False Corollary, or the Moron’s Non Sequitur

This may not be exactly new, but I do believe that the Internet and especially the rise of social media has caused this fallacy to metastasize throughout all online discourse. It is because arguments using this fallacy tend to have a pleasing balance to them, almost a form of retarded poetry. Thus dumb people - or people under the influence of narcotics (a number that I am firmly convinced is in the tens of millions at any given time in America alone) - think that it is a truly profound statement. I hate this with the fury of a thousand suns. It does more to lower the collective IQ of our people than perhaps any other form of argument. This is because these statements tend to be wrong on so many levels, and to make so many errors in logic or judgement, that refuting them with anything short of an essay is nearly impossible. And since the source and target audience of the Moron’s Non Sequitur can only process thoughts of a paragraph or less, it’s a total waste of time. Example:

• It’s too bad Musk and his cronies are chasing all the Brown people out of America, I hope MAGA is happy eating mayo sandwiches instead of curry and fajitas.

So there you have it, WCB’s list of new logical fallacies. I’m sure there are plenty that I’ve missed, and I may have even mistakenly thought that I’d noticed a new fallacy that is in fact just a variation on an old one. I’d be curious to read in the comments of any that I may have missed.