• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Other related argument techniques used on the internet (and elsewhere) often commingled with Sealioning:

    Butwhataboutism is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.

    Also, ignoring the rebuttal and constantly shifting the attack to a tangentially related part of the discussion forcing the opponent to defend and rebut each new point, generally exhausting them and causing frustration and irritation.

    JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.

    Moving the Goalposts in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Closely related to butwhataboutism.

    Appeal to Hypocrisy (tu quoque) basically tries to invalidate your opponent’s argument by using a “your side did it too, worse” and shift the argument to them defending themselves.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      And don’t forget the good old ad hominem, where instead of addressing any points, it attacks the one who made it in an attempt to intimidate the one making the point and applying peer pressure on others reading it to keep them away from that position.

      Had someone use that on me earlier today lol. They aren’t particularly effective on Lemmy, I’ve noticed. On Reddit, it depended on if they are for or against the popular circle jerk.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yep. That happens at the end when they get pissed they cannot “win”. Usually those engaged in the above tactics are well versed in exhausting their opponents rather than making it personal, though it does happen.

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Important detail, regarding argumentum ad hominem (AAH): a lot of people incorrectly conflate the fallacy with insults, even if both things are independent. For example, let’s say that someone said “the Moon is made of green cheese”. Here are four possible answers:

        Replies With insult Without insult
        With AAH You’re a bloody muppet, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust. You’re no astronomer, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust.
        Without AAH Yeah, because there’s totally cheese orbiting Earth for a bazillion years, right? Bloody muppet. Cheese wouldn’t be orbiting Earth for so long without spoiling.

        This conflation between ad hominem and insults interacts really funny with sealioning. Sometimes you get the sea lion claiming that you’re using AAH because you lost patience with its stupidity, but they’re also prone to use non-insulting AAH.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The insults never add anything useful to arguments and still appeal to the same basic things as insults alone, even if they are accompanied by logically sound arguments. And while they don’t logically weaken a position, they can emotionally weaken it for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness.

          Rage and anger might feel powerful, but they actually betray a sense of a lack of control. Trolls take advantage of this because it’s a sign they are getting to you. Plus it’s rare that people respond to insults by agreeing with the one who insulted them and the times when they do usually involve an appeal to authority (where the insulter has authority to back up their position and challenging them can have consequences).

          • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            If you’re measuring argument “strength” logically, the first paragraph is false; and if you’re doing it rhetorically, it’s misleading.

            On logical grounds, insults neither add nor subtract appeal to the argument. That can be seen in the example: at the core, the argument in the bottom left could be rephrased to remove the insult, and it would still convey the same reasoning. Emotional factors shouldn’t be considered on first place..

            And, on rhetorical grounds, insults can weaken or strengthen a position depending on the claim, context, and audience. (A good example of that would be the old “fuck off Nazi”.)

            for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness. [plus the second paragraph]

            This is an audience matter, so it applies to the rhetorical strength of the argument, not the logical one: I don’t argument for the sake of assumers, and claims to recognise frustration out of how others convey an argument is assumer tier irrationality. As such, even if insults would weaken the argument for them, I don’t care.

            In fact, they’re perhaps the major reason why I personally would recur to insults - to discourage their participation, since assumers are as much of a burden as sea lions (for roughly the same reasons).

            If, however, you do argument for the benefit of this sort of trashy individual, be aware that even the assumers might react positively towards insults against a third party. Some will make shit up that you’re “weak” and “frustrated”; some, that you’re “strong” and “brave”. It’ll depend on the general acceptability of the claim that you’re making on first place.