#logical fallacies

“Israel is illegitimate because it committed genocide.”

When confronted with the fact that Arab populations have grown, they pivot:

“Well, even if it’s not genocide, it’s apartheid.” Point out that Arab citizens have full voting rights and representation, and they switch again:

“Well, even if it’s not apartheid, Zionism is still colonialism.” Yet this is the opposite of colonialism. Colonialism is when a foreign empire rules from afar, while Zionism is a people returning to their ancestral homeland. At that point, the fallback becomes:

“Well, even if not, the very idea of a Jewish state is racist.” But that collapses too, since dozens of nations define themselves by ethnicity, culture, or religion, and no one denies them legitimacy.

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

–

Vote before you read below the line.

Have you noticed that a lot of people on social media don't ever feel compelled to explain themselves?

You've seen this, right?

The folks who proclaim a strong moral view on a controversial topic...then use any excuse to avoid supporting it when they get any polite pushback or questions? The way personal feelings are elevated above objective facts or reasoning? The way they avoid or shut down any meaningful discussion?

I think this is caused by a set of related ideas and biases which are in ascendence and I think younger generations are more vulnerable to being manipulated by bad actors who capitalize on them.

Before we get into that, let's look at some of the ways this phenomenon manifests on social media...and the sorts of biases/concepts at play.

___

"I’m just speaking my truth."

Translation: "Challenging the conclusions I draw from my emotional experience is immoral."

This converts subjective perception into absolute truth, which not only discourages fact-checking, counterpoints, or curiosity, but labels them as oppressive.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

"I don't have the emotional labor for this."

Translation: "I don't want be feel challenged, only validated."

This frames disengagement as a righteous act of self-care, rather than avoidance of intellectual discomfort.

Bias/Concept: Therapeutic Culture

___

"I feel attacked."

Translation: "You’ve introduced an idea that unsettles me."

This reframes an intellectual disagreement as personal harm, making the speaker immune to critique.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning

___

"That’s problematic"

Too often, this means "This topic made me feel bad, conflicted, or uncertain - and I don’t want to examine why."

It shuts down discussion without defining terms or explaining logic. It implies moral failure without needing to explain the moral reasoning.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Virtue Signaling

___

"Centering [X] is violence."

Translation: "I disagree with your priorities and framing that as harm makes me morally right."

This uses inflated, exaggerated, hyperbolic language to shut down any competing narratives or uncomfortable truths.

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Emotional Reasoning

___

"It's not my job to educate you."

Translation: "I don’t want to explain, defend, or support my belief. That would risk them being challenged on their merits. I just want my feelings validated and for my community to affirm I have expressed the correct views."

This avoids meaningful dialogue by asserting moral high ground and demanding deference...without reciprocity.

Bias/Concept: Virtue Signaling, Social Identity Theory

___

"As a [victim identity], I shouldn’t have to…"

Translation: "My group affiliation makes my views untouchable, questioning them makes you a bigot."

This uses identity to shield ideas from scrutiny. Lived experience becomes a veto power over disagreement.

Bias/Concept: Social Identity Theory, Motte and Bailey

___

"This is trauma-informed."

Translation: "You can’t question this without being insensitive"

This weaponizes therapeutic language to preempt dissent. (My therapist HATES this one.)

Bias/Concept: Concept Creep, Therapeutic Culture

___

"That’s giving [insert negative vibe or label]"

Translation: "Your argument feels like something I’ve been told to distrust"

This uses emotional associations instead of logic to delegitimize a person or point.

Bias/Concept: Emotional Reasoning, Subjective Validation

___

Do you see it?

Facts which conflict with feelings aren’t debated - they’re deemed hostile, even violent.

What all of these have in common is the primacy of emotion over reason.

Emotion isn’t the start of a thought for the people who make a habit of these behaviors - it's a substitute for thinking.

I don’t believe this shift is driven by malice or conscious dishonesty. Most people haven’t stopped caring about truth - they’ve simply come to discern what truth is through emotional resonance instead of through evidence or reasoning.

"Truth" now arrives on screens dressed in vibes and aesthetic cues tailored for their existing biases, bypassing critical thought and offering the dopamine-releasing comfort of certainty without the messy, time-consuming burden of understanding.

When Emotion Becomes Authority

Here's a recent example which is getting some deserved mockery in the last day or so:

I know, I know. listening to Theo Von talk about war is like listening a possum try to to sell you on cryptocurrency.

Scratch that - Theo Von is what we'd expect to see if a pair of Truck Nutz were to gain sentience in a laboratory accident.

Theo couldn't speak for his generation any more than a broken Roomba could speak for Artificial General Intelligence, but he's doing something here which is alarmingly and increasingly common for his generation of media personalities. He's using his feelings as a replacement for thinking.

...it feels to me...it just feels to me like it's a genocide that's happening...

Theo doesn’t check facts, definitions, sources, or context because he doesn’t have to. He just invokes a vibe, a moral mood. "It feels like genocide." That’s enough.

Theo has 3.9 million subscribers on YouTube. Estimates suggest his total reach is about 16.2 million people.

The Era of Vibe-Governed Reality

In 2025, truth is not discerned though evidence or reasoning, but through emotional resonance.

Feelings are like the new science, but they're peer-reviewed only by your immediate social circle and validated by the count of reshares.

This is NOT a crotchety right-wing Fox News viewer shaking his fist at clouds and ranting about "kids these days."

This isn't even a critique of liberalism or leftism (because I'm a lifelong left-leaning liberal who grew up in a liberal/socialist family).

It's an examination of what has become a common strategy for mass manipulation which is alarmingly effective, especially with younger generations.

The Water We Swim In

Political operatives and influlence campaigns from every perspective are capitalizing on it, too. Influence campaigns from Russia, Iran, and Qatar; PACs; lobbyist firms...everybody - and we don't really notice these maipulations any longer. Why don't we notice them?

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water? -David Foster Wallace

We don't notice because we're swimming in them.

Every day, we see provocative social media posts which prioritize shock value and emotional impact, aiming to capture attention and convey political stances through intense feelings rather than through facts or reasoned arguments.

Appeals to emotion have been used to bypass logic and reasoning for millennia.

You're probably familiar with these:

Every time anyone ever said "think of the children," you're supposed to clutch your pearls in fear and horror.

US War propaganda in WWII used emotional appeals like "I WANT YOU" or addressed attrocities meant to hit Americans in their emotional center.

Joseph Goebbel's speaches and films used fear, disgust, and resentment to enflame existing negative German feelings against Jews and other minorities.

Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe constructed scenes of immense emotional intensity to provoke outrage and sympathy, especially among white Northern readers in hopes of galvinizing anti-slavery sentiment.

So appeals to emotion aren't new and aren't always dishonest.

What's new is the increasing, overwhelming spread of this way of reaching conclusions in our public discourse replacing other modes of communication, other means of persuasion, and other ways of "knowing" anything.

What's new is that our post-truth, postmodern academic models validate this.

What's new is how this is being weaponized against us, especially younger generations.

How We Turned "I Feel" Into the New "I Know"

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It’s the product of decades of cultural, technological, and psychological changes converging to create a perfect storm where feelings have become a replacement for thinking.

First, there’s the growing cultural emphasis on authenticity and personal experience as the highest forms of truth. This began as a perfectly reasonable corrective to rigid institutional authority and exclusionary narratives but has morphed into a worldview where subjective emotion is treated as inherently more valid than objective evidence.

At the same time, therapeutic culture expanded its reach beyond therapy offices into everyday life, encouraging people to view disagreements as trauma, debates as emotional violence, and intellectual challenge as psychological harm. The result of this is a protective reflex to avoid uncomfortable facts or nuanced arguments that might trigger emotional distress.

If this sounds familiar, note that it's something I've touched on before. The people doing this habitually don't take their positions based on moral principles, facts, context, nuance or reasoning because what motivates them is emotional comfort.

(Experiment: Keep this idea in mind while you're scrolling online and see it that rings true when people will not or cannot support their assertions.)

Social media platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, right? The fastest way to do that is by appealing directly to emotion—especially outrage, fear, and identity affirmation. Algorithms reward the most emotionally charged content because it keeps users scrolling, sharing, and commenting. Nuance, complexity, or even honest uncertainty rarely go viral; they don’t light up dopamine circuits the same way.

That's bad enough for our mental health, our intellects, and our public discourse, but the greatest danger is in how these emotional shortcuts to baseless conclusions create fertile ground for bad actors who want to manipulate public opinion en masse.

Your Feels, Their Power: A Beginner’s Guide to Being Played

Whether it’s state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, political operatives, or interest groups, these manipulators know exactly how to weaponize the primacy of emotion.

Russian Interference in the 2024 U.S. Elections

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. elections, Russian state actors engaged in disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining Democratic candidates and bolstering Republican ones. These efforts included spreading false narratives about candidates Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, such as fabricated stories of personal misconduct. The campaigns utilized social media platforms to disseminate emotionally charged content that resonated with specific voter demographics.

Operation Overload Targeting USAID

A Russian disinformation campaign known as "Operation Overload" targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by producing AI-generated fake news videos. One such video falsely claimed that USAID paid Hollywood celebrities to promote Ukrainian President Zelensky. This content gained significant traction after being shared by high-profile individuals on social media, illustrating how emotional manipulation can amplify disinformation.

Far-Right Exploitation of Social Media Platforms

Far-right groups have effectively used platforms like Instagram and TikTok to disseminate emotionally charged content targeting young audiences. By leveraging visually engaging media and exploiting platform algorithms, these groups spread divisive messages that often go unchecked due to inadequate content moderation.

Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior in Anti-Vaccine Campaign

During the COVID-19 pandemic, coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) networks spread anti-vaccine misinformation across social media platforms. These networks used fake and duplicate accounts to amplify emotionally charged narratives, undermining public health efforts and exploiting fears related to the pandemic.

Bad actors craft messages designed not to inform or persuade through reason but to resonate emotionally - often through fear, anger, or identity-based grievance.

These messages bypass critical thinking by activating deeply held feelings or tribal loyalties.

Younger generations, raised in a world flooded with emotional messaging and taught to prioritize feelings as a moral compass, are especially vulnerable.

Social media doesn’t just deliver content, it delivers community validation. Likes, shares, and emojis, no shit, reinforce emotional responses as truths.

This isn’t just an accidental byproduct. It’s a deliberate strategy and it's been developed to an art form.

Polarization: By amplifying outrage and framing complex issues as zero-sum battles of good vs. evil, manipulators ensure people become entrenched in their “side” and reject any nuance.

Echo Chambers: Algorithms funnel users into filter bubbles where their emotional beliefs are constantly reinforced and opposing views are demonized or erased.

Identity Weaponization: Bad actors exploit identity politics to turn social groups into ideological fortresses where dissent is branded as betrayal or bigotry, shutting down dialogue and scrutiny.

Emotional Hijacking: They flood social feeds with rapid-fire emotional content, making thoughtful reflection impossible and replacing reasoned debate with knee-jerk reactions.

The result is a feedback loop. Emotional responses breed more emotional content, which breeds more disengagement from facts, nuance, or evidence...and the cycle repeats.

If you wonder why almost every attempt to have honest conversations about politics, culture, or identity have become so fraught and fractious, this is why.

So what can we do about it?

We’re definitely not going to get the platofrms to change their algorithms.

We’re not going to manage to out-meme every bit of authoritarian / antisemitic / bigoted propaganda.

We can't stop people from replacing thinking with feeling.

Maybe, though, we can push back in meaningful ways by starting with how we think, speak, and engage.

Feelings Are Real - But They’re Not Facts

Start with yourself. Recognize that emotions matter, but they don’t get the final word. Treat your emotional reactions as data, not conclusions.

Ask: Why am I reacting this way? Is there more to the story? Your habitual curiosity can interrupt the feedback loop.

Seek Discomfort (The Good Kind)

If everything you read confirms what you already believe, you’re not learning, you’re marinating. Deliberately engage with credible voices you disagree with. Not to convert, but to understand. Intellectual discomfort isn't harm, it’s a way to grow.

Don’t Outsource Your Thinking

If your arguments are mostly reshares and TikTok duets, you might be mistaking social validation for understanding. Read full articles. Watch entire interviews. When an assertion really appeals to you, ask yourself: "What evidence is this based on?" Then fact-check the evidence.

Value Nuance - Even When It’s Boring

Nuance doesn’t trend. It’s slow, hard, and less emotionally satisfying than hot takes.

It's’s also where truth lives. Learn to sit with complexity. Practice saying things like "It’s complicated," "I’m not sure yet," or "Both things can be true.

Stop Feeding the Rage Machine

Every time you rage-share a headline without reading it, or dunk on someone for clout, you are feeding the same system you claim to hate. Don’t give your attention to people or platforms that reward outrage over insight. (I need to work on this.)

Reward Substance Over Vibes

Like, comment on, and share posts that show integrity, humility, and reasoned thinking - even if they’re not flashy. That’s how we might tilt the algorithm. Influence is a numbers game. Elevate voices that model real thought.

Normalize Saying "I Don’t Know"

Admitting uncertainty isn't weakness, it’s maturity. It’s how real conversations happen. When someone asks for your take, it’s okay to say, "I’m still figuring it out" or "I want to learn more first." You're not required to have a take on everything.

Ask Better Questions

When someone makes an emotional claim, don’t attack - ask. Not "How could you believe that?" but "What led you to that view?"

Good faith questions can defuse bad faith conversations.

Protect Conversations Like They Matter (Because They Do)

Modeling intellectual honesty and emotional maturity in your own circles has a ripple effect. Be the one who brings it back to evidence, back to reason, back to shared humanity. Conversations are culture-shaping.

Remember That Culture Is a Team Sport

We got into this mess together, and we’ll get out the same way. Culture is just the cumulative effect of individual choices repeated at scale. Choose better. Think better. Talk better.

You don’t have to be louder than the noise.

As Arthur Conan Doyle put it, "twisting facts to fit theories rather than theories to fit facts."

(Here's an article about the study referenced in the second to last reblog. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/124674)

There is no physical attribute or biological process, in humans or any other species, that is "supposed to" or "intended to" or "meant to" be a certain way. That is not a meaningful concept.

"People are supposed to be able to walk a mile without assistance."

No. Perhaps most people can walk a mile without assistance, but many people cannot. There is no "supposed to."

"People with ovaries are intended to be able to get pregnant."

No. Many people with ovaries are able to get pregnant, and some are not. There is no "intended to."

"People are designed to have XX or XY chromosomes."

No. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes, but many do not. There is no "designed to."

"Your child should be sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old."

No. Many children are sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old, but some are not. "Should" has no place here.

Too often, well-meaning people try to rebut these arguments with some kind of "accepting" teleological argument for "why" disabled/queer people might exist.

"Maybe autistic people exist to be lone shepherds watching the flock. Maybe gay people exist to be adoptive parents for orphans. Maybe people with Down syndrome exist to be peacekeepers and mediators. Maybe ADHD people exist to be creative problem-solvers"

No. These may be social roles that may be well-suited to some people's strengths, but they're not the reason that anyone exists, because people don't exist for a reason. Autistic people exist. Gay people exist. People with Down syndrome exist. ADHD people exist.

This also opens the door to people arguing "What about the BAD disabilities, that don't have a function? What about cancer? What about Tay-Sachs disease? What about cystic fibrosis? What about major depressive disorder? Surely THOSE disabilities aren't supposed to exist!"

And yet they do. People with cancer exist. People with Tay-Sachs disease exist. People with cystic fibrosis exist. People with major depressive disorder exist. They deserve rights and dignity and equality because they are people who exist.

Some people will try to get around this by using "evolved to." "People evolved to practice heterosexual reproduction. People evolved to have two legs and be able to run."

But evolution isn't goal-oriented. It just happens. Having two legs and running and reproducing heterosexually are predominant human traits, but clearly, they are not necessary ones, because you can look around and see people who don't have two legs, people who can't run, people who don't practice heterosexual reproduction.

Here is another short form video that explains clearly and quickly debate tactics used to discredit important issues. In the following are outlined:

Strawman: when someone reframes/rewrites your question to make it easier to beat, often times changing the meaning entirely to make the question seem illogical or irrational.

Appeal to Emotion: Using emotional manipulation to ilicit an emotional response instead of engaging with the argument itself.

Ad Hominem: attacking the person asking questions instead of answering the question. This is specifically to discredit the claim by attacking the person's credibility, even if the claim is valid.

False dichotomy: this is the classic "two things can be true" thing I see a LOT on this site. This one says by focusing on one item, the other item is not important and thus you are evil/wrong/or bad.

Red Herring: when someone brings up a seperate topic to derail and distract from the original topic. The classic "define a woman" tactic Kirk stans use a lot.

Remain calm. Remain rational. And disengage if they try to get an emotional rise out of you so you don't become feed for their content farms. And if you are unable, do not engage.

And record them if they record you so you can post it in full.

Phrases like "I am sorry you feel the need to ridicule people who are different than you." Or "You're not here to learn, you're here to farm content. Please leave me alone." Are good exit strategies.

When discussing media, any statement that follows this type of pattern:

If you don't agree with the expressed opinion then you have a moral failing, with the implication you should feel ashamed about it...

That's a false equivalency. It's probably obvious when it's stated bluntly like that, but it's harder to recognize in the wild in the moment when the emotional reaction the statement triggers gets logged first.

Here's a very basic example that I'm using because I've seen it a lot lately (no hate here, my intention is not to call out anyone who might have made posts like this, please keep reading because I do explain that below):

If you didn't like the ending of Good Omens, you don't think humans/human love/relationships that start in mid-life have any worth.

I think it's important to remember that most of the people posting that sort of thing don't have a troll mindset. They have a love for the source and a strong opinion that feels right in their bones and it's very easy to get caught up in feeling like anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. So they look at why they loved it and extrapolate that people who don't agree clearly feel the opposite.

Notice how OP doesn’t cite any actual examples of Kirk doing this.

Also, this entire post is itself an example of ad hominem and propaganda.

It’s implying Charlie Kirk is a bad person - or at least a bad debater - just because he used a common logical fallacy, regardless of the actual subject. And what he did the rest of the time.

Plus the irony of, y’know, how many of his detractors have implied he deserved to get murdered because they think he was a Bad Person™

Ah, yes, blindly believing a story with no actual evidence because it panders to your beliefs is “critical thinking”.

Not to mention the ol’ “everyone knows X, therefore it must be true!” fallacy.