How to be a douchebag on the internet
Substantive discussion is hard. Even harder on the internet. Though having access to nearly infinite amount of resources on every topic, discussions there are mostly just garbage. So why should we make any difference. It is always better to adapt than to try change anything. I’ll show you some examples how we can master being a douchebag without being accused of lying or trolling.
The most important thing we are going to learn is called logical fallacy. In a few simple words: it’s bending argumentations for our needs and delivering them with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts. This technique is often used in public conversations, and as you can guess it is often used by politicians.
In order to be able to use it smoothly we need to reconcile that it is manipulation and of course, we can use it even without knowing. Most of us does. But imagine how effective you can be knowing these tips in everyday life.
Let’s dive into the most common ones with help from some favourite personalities and see when to use logical fallacy.
Use Strawman fallacy
This one is probably one of the most popular. People do it every day, and our brains have perfectly adapted to do it. You need to misinterpret someone’s argument or oversimplify it. But remember, stick to the general topic. Thanks to that, you don’t anymore address your argument against his, but against strawman you have just created. And in your head, this strawman is an easy enemy, probably already defeated. You just need to make sure that others also see it so simple as you.
For example:
You do not consider yourself quite ‘pro earth person’ and want to prove some conspiracy theory while also attacking climate changes? Address that weather outside isn’t actually that warm and last year it was warmer that day. You may know that weather and climate aren’t the same thing but it’s not about the truth. It’s about making bold statements and this one is.
Real life example from an authority:
translation - “Damn it gets me when I see how much we pay for that global warming and I look through the window”.
(hit that boy hard)
Appeal to Nature
This one is super effective in multiple fields. By using arguments revoking in “common sense”, without any statistics or facts we can convince people for everything as long as long it is ‘natural’. Sounds crazy huh?
Even big companies use it. Have you ever heard about Natural Medicine? What can be wrong with that. You can take how many pills you want of that natural drug without doctor prescription. It is natural, so it has to be good. Who would think in state of that strong argumentation that hemlock or botulinum toxin is also natural.
If you are transphobic you can use this argument to protect your believes.
‘How?’ - you may ask. Just say that you don’t like that kind of people because it is not natural. They are not natural, and we don’t have to justify any natural process.
But you may ask again: isn’t rectal cancer or eating own newborn babies, cannibalism, raping and adultery in animal world just another natural process? Does it mean that everything that goes with nature isn’t idyllic?
- So what? People are not consistent in argumentation and take whatever they think is proper for them. No worries that they will use logic for this one.
Appeal to authority
“Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again”
(Donald J. Trump)
(Donald J. Trump)
Do we need to verify this argument? Of course not. There is no better source of information than authority. And who’s better authority than the president of the best freakin’ country in the world. He also must have some forbidden knowledge about that topic.
Whenever you can, appeal to authority. Authorities are not some kind of normal human beings. They do not need to prove their contentions like everybody else.
On the most of debates calling to an authority that is a scientist will give you +10 to credibility.
Also remember - there is always a scientist that will approve any unpopular opinion. Biologist that does not accept theory of evolution? Pff, that’s an easy one.
At this point you know some basic techniques of being a douchebag. If you want to make progress in that area I suggest visiting:
https://external-preview.redd.it/Y2SlZYQtcgRlmbQPLYYEjq26RPvJJsphM2lqLLxyPv4.jpg?auto=webp&s=1383d93e121997f1786352ccebb7660b7d390eac
https://external-preview.redd.it/Y2SlZYQtcgRlmbQPLYYEjq26RPvJJsphM2lqLLxyPv4.jpg?auto=webp&s=1383d93e121997f1786352ccebb7660b7d390eac
Or just Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
1. Do you know any more logical fallacies? (Argumentum ad Hitlerum does not count)
2. Are you aware when someone uses logical fallacy in your environment or in any text you read?
3. Do you catch yourself sometimes on using logical fallacy? Or maybe you do it intentionally?
Comments
Look into the Socratic Method. It's a good way of having an argument when you don't really like arguing, and it's one of the more effective ways of actually getting people to reconsider their opinions. To add to this, if you read some on Plato's work on Socrates, you can see how he absolutely destroys everybody with his arguments. The man is a literal legend at debating.
Yes, I can recognize when someone uses one of technics mentioned. I think the easiest strategies to notice which are used by the majority of people in internet debates are "bandwagon" and "composition/division".
Yes, I do. But I don't think I do it unintentionally. In fact, we all do this from time to time. When we are arguing with someone it's always about proving your point and no matter how unbiased you try to be, subconsciously you're doing everything to win the argument even if you are not right. Sure, it looks kind of sketchy when other people use these strategies, but we usually don't see it as something bad when we do it.
As for whether I'm aware when someone uses a logical fallacy, it depends. Sometimes I notice it, but logical fallacies can be somewhat hard to spot if they are disguised with clever phrasing.
I do catch myself using a logical fallacy sometimes, though I'm sure there are also times where I use a logical fallacy and don't notice it. Fallacies can be a tricky thing, and it's easy to commit one unintentionally.
I recognise it when I have some knowledge about the subject that is mentioned by given person, otherwise I could be manipulated, unless something seems illogical or dubious.
I'd say that if I use it I do it unconsciously - I don't think to myself 'Alright, I will use this technique to win this fight'.
No I don't. I have never thought to much on that topic. I most of the time try to avoid discussions over the internet. Why? Because most of the time they tend to lower my mood drasticly when I try to explain something to a brick wall.
2. Are you aware when someone uses logical fallacy in your environment or in any text you read?
Thats the first time I hear this term, but now that I think of it, many people tend to use them over what they believe is right, trying to discredit every other opinion.
3. Do you catch yourself sometimes on using logical fallacy? Or maybe you do it intentionally?
I try to avoid it at all cost. When I say "i have read about research on that" I try to immediately give source leading to that research or article so anyone can read it by themself and check if I am speaking truth.
To be honest sometimes I know that someone is using logical fallacy but only when I know some things about a topic of a text that I'm reading. When I don't know the topic I don't find any approval of this information on different sites. Nowadays it's really hard to know what is true and what is fake news.
I don't use it to my benefit but I guess sometimes I just don't know that I might have used it to win an argument or proove someone wrong.
No, I'm not really good in discussions.
2. Are you aware when someone uses logical fallacy in your environment or in any text you read?
Hard to be sure. If it's the topic which I know, I think that I can recognize when someone uses it, but if it's about something that I have no idea about, how can I know?
3. Do you catch yourself sometimes on using logical fallacy? Or maybe you do it intentionally?
Rather not, but something I'm catching myself on suggesting my thought to other people, as they are their own thoughts. Unintentionally of course.
2. It depends on subject. If I have a lot of knowledge about on a given topic, I can easily detect logical fallacies.
3. If I use logical fallacies, it's compeletaly unintentionally.
2. I belive no... When I'm reading or listening to someone I'm just... receiving information. Later when I'm alone I can think about it and find such things but never during conversation/reading.
3. I've never catched myslef on it... or maybe I just want to belive so? Probably I'm using such douchebag moves but totaly unintentionally.