I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on the app and have seen a bunch of interactions that go the same way every time. These are just parodies of arguments I’ve seen, but I’d wager that you’ve seen some of these too (just in different contexts). If you find these examples corny, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
#1 Non-mutually exclusive generalizations that appeal to naturalism
Socialist: The validity of socialism is such an obvious truism that even a child knows it—just ask any 4-year-old whether or not they think everybody deserves food and shelter!
Rationalist: You would say that trickle-down economics is bad, right?
Socialist: Of course. Trickle-down economics is an excuse from capitalist overlords to oppress the working class and keep them impoverished.
Rationalist: By your logic, it’s blatantly obvious that trickle-down economics works. Just ask any 4-year-old whether or not they want abundance and prosperity for everyone!
Socialist: But that completely ignores the constraints on trickle-down economics in the real world. Any immature 4-year-old understands that welfare for everyone is good; the issue lies in how your method of achieving maximum welfare fares in the real world!
Rationalist: Do you see why socialism is not obvious now?
#2 Corroborating variables that actually explain each other
Conspiracy theorist: There are so few Jews in the world, yet they seem to run everything! This must be evidence for a cabal of Jewish elites that dictate global affairs.
Rationalist: Why don’t you apply the same standard of scrutiny for Christians?
Conspiracy theorist: Because there are so many Christians in the world that it makes sense for a small percentage of them to be rich and powerful. Jews are such a small group.
Rationalist: Shouldn’t it be the case that smaller groups of people can have more deviation from the average than larger groups of people who dictate your average in the first place?
Conspiracy theorist: So you’re saying that my first area of suspicion makes my second area of suspicion more plausible?
Rationalist: Yes.
#3 Confusing negative and positive correlations
Libertarian: It’s funny how the big government people point to all the failures of our government and act like it’s proof that we need more of it.
Rationalist: It’s also funny how people demand higher wages while pointing to the troubles caused by our current wages, as if it’s proof we need higher wages.
Libertarian: You’re missing the point here. People have problems because of their lack of adequate wages; you can’t just extrapolate that and assume even more wages mean even more problems!
Rationalist: Exactly—this is why your response to the big government people fails. You already assumed that a negative correlation was a positive one.
#4 Straw man and original position fallacies
Twitter user: Jeffrey Epstein actually killed a bunch of babies, took their blood, and watered his island with it! Please repost my sensationalist story!!!
Rationalist: We know Epstein was horrible, but do you have evidence that he did that specific thing?
Twitter user: No? It’s obvious that Epstein was literally Satan; why do you need evidence for this?
Rationalist: Then it seems like you’re making stuff up. You don’t have any evidence whatsoever for this, and the burden of proof is on you.
Twitter user: Why are you defending Epstein, you disgusting and vile fuck?
Rationalist: I’m simply correcting a lie you made. Someone’s badness doesn’t justify making up random, unsubstantiated claims about them to farm engagement out of rage.
#5 Attempting to disprove implication with mutual inclusivity
MAGA conservative: All these liberal claims about Trump punishing anyone who doesn’t support his pro-Israel agenda are completely false. There are so many instances of Trump punishing politicians who support his pro-Israel agenda.
Rationalist: You would accept that anyone caught not paying taxes gets punished by the government, correct?
MAGA conservative: That’s obvious, so yes.
Rationalist: People who don’t pay their taxes can still get punished by the government for something like manslaughter, correct?
MAGA conservative: Yes. What are you trying to prove here?
Rationalist: So in order to prove that Trump doesn’t punish politicians who don’t support his stance on Israel, you have to give cases of politicians who oppose Israel not getting punished by Trump—your argument is analogous to saying that people don’t get punished for tax fraud because citizens paying taxes can still be arrested for manslaughter, shoplifting, etc.
#6 Treating existential attributes as preceding scalar ones
Communist: The amount of corruption, nepotism, and oligarchy in the U.S. government right now is not even astounding; it just exposes how capitalist democracy is just another excuse for the Epstein class to control us! Democracy is fundamentally just repackaged fascism, and anyone who is blind to this has been blinded by propaganda.
Rationalist: A 150 degree and 200 degree coffee both are hot enough to burn your tongue, right?
Communist: Of course.
Rationalist: Would you prefer being forced to drink one of them over the other?
Communist: I would prefer to drink the 150-degree coffee, since it’s significantly cooler relative to the 200-degree one.
Rationalist: But they are fundamentally the same thing because both can burn your tongue!
Communist: What? One of them is clearly going to hurt more than the other—just because both are scalding hot doesn’t mean they’re the same temperature.
Rationalist: Exactly. Claiming democracy is equivalent to fascism due to the existence of corruption ignores the varying degrees of that corruption.
#7 Removal of middle ground
Groyper: Why do you refuse to speak about Israel and the Epstein files? If you have nothing to hide and don’t endorse pedophiles or genocide, you would’ve just spoken out already.
Rationalist: I’m not educated on the specifics of what Israel has done recently, nor have I looked over the Epstein files, so it doesn’t make sense to speak out on an issue that I’m clearly not educated on.
Groyper: This is obvious proof that you’re playing dumb to reinforce the legitimacy of the current system. You’re being complicit in a literal genocide, you morally decrepit piece of shit.
Rationalist: If I agree with you here, I’m admitting I’m endorsing genocide by omission. If I disagree with you here, you’re going to call me a Zionist shill because it’s a sign that I’m guilty of endorsing genocide. Either way, you’re just going to call me what you believe I was. Your indictment is unfalsifiable!
Groyper: Haha, you’re just refusing to even engage with my claims. This is literal red-handed proof that you’re a Zionist shill!
#8 Genealogical debunking over substance
Anti-vaxxer: Looking at Pfizer’s criminal track record of fraud, deception, and lawsuits, it’s astounding that so many sheeple still trust vaccine manufacturers. They obviously have ill intent when vaccinating the masses.
Rationalist: If Pfizer manufactured one product that cured cancer, is it valid to look at the product and dismiss it as dangerous because of Pfizer’s track record of lawsuits?
Anti-vaxxer: Of course not. You have to take a look at the state of the product itself.
Rationalist: Have you done that for vaccines?
Anti-vaxxer: No.
#9 False dichotomy
Environmentalist: This new policy only reduces carbon emissions by 20% and still allows the same corporate polluters to stay in business by using fossil fuels! We have to campaign against it.
Rationalist: I think a 20% decrease in emissions is a reasonably good deal, no?
Environmentalist: Supporting this bill still makes you endorse the 80% of pollutants that remain, making you a sellout. It’s a false solution; I’m not endorsing the lesser of two evils.
Rationalist: If someone is bleeding to death and you can give them a bandage that reduces bleeding by 50%, would you reject the bandage because it doesn’t stop the bleeding entirely?
Environmentalist: That is an outrageous question. You’re assuming that we can’t just reduce the bleeding and then save the person!
Rationalist: Mutual exclusivity is exactly what you assumed in your original statement.
#10 Just… Beyond braindead
Smug conservative: The amount of medicare fraud is absolutely insane. Over 20% of Medicare goes down the drain to fraud, and even more goes towards subsidizing illegals. Every libtard who voted for Medicare should be ashamed of themselves for falling for this socialist propaganda.
Rationalist: Do you have a source for the 20% statistic or a quantification for the amount of medicare funds subsidizing illegals?
Smug conservative: Go do the research yourself, libtard. It’s not my job to provide fucking ignorant people with free intellectual labor—Google is free.
Rationalist: Once again, you made the claim; you can’t just assume it’s already true and that I’m just wrong to avoid your burden of proof.
are lefties biased always?
Interesting piece. Reminded me of that logical fallacies topic in philosophy, which is one of my favorites.
Just a side note, though.
"Democracy is fundamentally just repackaged fascism, and anyone who is blind to this has been blinded by propaganda."
That doesn't sound like something a Communist would say, in my opinion. Sure, there are many people who don't truly represent the view they claim to represent, and those people can be on Twitter, but for someone who doesn't know much about communism or has a bias against it, this sentence could mean a fact, rather than a mere individual example.
That being said, we are, of course, cannot always be held responsible for what people can misunderstand.
I think I'm negating my own comment here, but oh well.