#logical-fallacies

The Benevolent Troll: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

TL;DR: Not all trolls are obvious; some hide behind a facade of kindness.

Trolls aren’t always the snarling, aggressive figures we imagine. Sometimes, they wear the mask of benevolence, pretending to engage in good faith while subtly undermining the conversation. This is the benevolent troll, a master of disguise in the digital age.

Benevolent trolls often employ a variety of tactics to derail discussions or sow discord, all while maintaining an air of innocence. They might use hypocrisy, where they accuse others of the very behaviors they themselves exhibit. Or they might lean on logical fallacies, constructing arguments that seem reasonable at first glance but crumble under scrutiny. Blatant lies are another favorite tool, as they can quickly spread misinformation and confusion.

Hypocrisy: Calling out others for behaviors they themselves are guilty of.

Logical Fallacies: Using flawed reasoning to make their point seem valid.

Blatant Lies: Spreading false information to mislead or confuse.

Sealioning: Pretending to ask sincere questions while actually derailing the conversation.

Whataboutism: Deflecting criticism by pointing to unrelated issues.

These tactics aren’t just annoying—they’re harmful. They can erode trust, spread misinformation, and stifle meaningful dialogue. Just last week, a minor news story highlighted how a seemingly well-intentioned online campaign was actually a front for spreading disinformation. It’s a reminder that we must stay vigilant.

So, how do we counter these benevolent trolls? First, recognize the tactics. When you see hypocrisy, call it out. When faced with a logical fallacy, break it down and explain why it doesn’t hold water. Don’t let blatant lies go unchallenged—fact-check and provide evidence. And when you encounter sealioning or whataboutism, steer the conversation back to the original point.

In the end, it’s about fostering a healthier online environment. We all have a role to play in ensuring that our digital spaces are places of genuine dialogue and understanding. So next time you spot a benevolent troll, ask yourself: how can I turn this encounter into an opportunity for truth and clarity?

The Fine Line Between Critique and Cruelty

TL;DR: Critique tactics, not people, to maintain healthy discourse.

Trolling is the internet’s favorite pastime.

In a world where online discourse often feels like a battlefield, it’s crucial to distinguish between calling out harmful tactics and descending into personal attacks. Trolling, with its many faces—sealioning, whataboutism, and the infamous gish gallop—thrives on chaos and confusion. It’s a game of smoke and mirrors, where the goal is to derail meaningful conversation and sow discord. But here’s the kicker: while it’s essential to shine a light on these tactics, turning that spotlight into a weapon against individuals is where we cross the line into cruelty.

Let’s break it down:

Critique the tactic, not the person. When you see someone employing a bad-faith argument, focus on dismantling the argument itself. Highlight the logical fallacies or the disinformation being spread. This keeps the conversation constructive and prevents it from devolving into a personal vendetta.

Understand the tactic. Recognizing the signs of trolling is the first step in countering it. Whether it’s the relentless questioning of sealioning or the shifting goalposts of motte-and-bailey, knowing what you’re up against allows you to respond effectively without getting dragged into the mud.

Promote media literacy. Encourage others to see through the noise. Share resources that help people identify and counteract these tactics. It’s not just about winning an argument; it’s about fostering a culture of critical thinking and accountability.

In the end, it’s about maintaining the integrity of our discourse. When we stoop to mockery, we risk becoming the very thing we’re fighting against. So, next time you encounter a troll, ask yourself: are you critiquing the tactic, or are you targeting the person? The answer could make all the difference in preserving the quality of our conversations.

Stop being fooled by the endless loop of bad-faith arguments. It’s time to cut through the noise.

Picture this: you’re at a Beltane festival, the air alive with celebration and renewal. But just as the fire’s warmth begins to envelop you, someone starts asking for proof that the flames are hot. Again. And again. That’s sealioning for you—demanding endless evidence while ignoring what’s right in front of them. It’s a tactic defenders of ICE often use, sidestepping the mountain of documentation about deaths, abuse, and violations. They ask for more proof, more details, more everything, all while conveniently ignoring what’s already been laid bare.

It’s frustrating, isn’t it? But here’s the thing: you don’t have to play their game. Recognize the tactic for what it is—a distraction, a way to derail meaningful conversation. When someone keeps asking for evidence that’s already been provided, it’s not about seeking truth. It’s about wearing you down.

So, what can you do? First, call it out. Name the tactic. “This feels like sealioning,” you might say. “We’ve already discussed the reports from last week.” (Remember that minor news event about the unexpected rise in sea turtle populations? Yeah, that was real. And documented.) Then, redirect the conversation back to the core issue. “Let’s focus on solutions instead of rehashing the same points.”

It’s about staying grounded, keeping the conversation moving forward, and not getting bogged down in endless, circular debates. Because at the end of the day, it’s about creating a society where everyone feels safe and valued. A society where we can celebrate Beltane without someone questioning the heat of the fire.

Now, I want to cover some fallacies that we are all prone of.

Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Bad people (as your opponents) necessarily have bad arguments. (This may not be true)

Good people must have good arguments. (Again, this must not be true)

Loop Reinforcement

Statement: aircrafts purposely spray chemicals in order to harm nature and people (so-called chemtrails). Proper response: extraordinary claims should be backed-up by thorough measurements. Counter answer: proper measurements are hindered by the government. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

The more official sources deny facts, the truer they must be.

All official explanations are necessarily wrong, because government and industry always have nefarious intentions (called: overriding suspicion)

Reversal of the Burden of Proof

Alice says: we should invest our money in gold. Bob answers: why should we. Now Alice has to provide an explanation. This was the good example.

Now the bad one: Alice says: we should invest our money in gold. Bob answers: why should we? Alice answers: can you please tell me why we shouldn’t.

My paper was criticizing what Guliuzza has publicly written in which he denies the reality of natural selection: a claim that he has never publicly retracted.

My paper was criticizing what Guliuzza has publicly written in which he denies the reality of natural selection: a claim that he has never publicly retracted.

My notes on logical fallacies: perhaps they are not as bad as you think. People can make what are clearly errors in logic, and sometimes such fallacies are used as decision-making heuristics or cultural blends. This helps us make difficult decisions in the absence of information, or make sense of situations with little precedent.

This is like the 12-step program for skeptics and humanists (or those who aspire to these values). Much like 12-step programs, they leave a lot to be desired. These rules are largely naive of propagandist techniques, and the innate cognitive and cultural biases of their readers. The rhetoric argument does not fare with respect to this list. Fallacies on this list that I have an issue with:

1) Special pleading (and appeal to emotion): in cases where people fail to understand the context of a decision, special pleading might help to offset the damage done by a purely logical decision. Legal decisions that do not take in special cases (e.g. Grandfather clauses) are particularly of note.

2) Black-or-white: if decision-making were entirely deliberative (e.g. purely logical), we would never arrive at a decision. In this sense, decision-making must include a impulsive (or emotional) component. 

3) Ad hominem: while attacking the person rather than the argument is a convenient way to win an argument, this idea also assumes that people always argue in good faith and from a position of pure objectivity. This leaves no room for a theory of motivation, particularly when an argument has a thinly-veiled ulterior motive.

4) Slippery Slope: in cases of ambiguous moral or logical clarity, the slippery slope might actually help us clarify boundaries between one state and another. Without this boundary, human cognition is left without a reference point, which does not allow for clear (and culturally-relevant) decisions to be made.

5) Ambiguity: ambiguity is a necessary condition of a living argument. In cases where ambiguity is resolved, argument or belief/rule system becomes constricted. Allegorical arguments depend on ambiguity to remain relevant -- perhaps this is simply support for the ambiguity fallacy, but allegories are important devices in abducing (e.g. logical abduction) new logical relationships.

6) Strawman: "misrepresentation" of an argument is often in the eye of the beholder. People tend to extract heuristics in dealing with complex arguments, so it is hard to not construct a strawman (unless it is exceedingly flimsy, as with most intelligent design endeavors).