Kafkatrapping and other bad argument tactics.

[Rageaholic]

Kafkatrapping refers to arguments based on this line of logic

Denial of guilt = guilty

It doesn't leave any room for the possibility that the accusation is wrong. You either admit you're guilty or deny your guilt (and you're still guilty). One of the worst instances of this occurred on a message board a decade ago. They were discussing corporal punishment. One of the anti CP people argued that it was wrong because

a) those defending it knew it was wrong (which can't be proven unless you're a mind reader.)
b) they were trying to justify it (which by that logic, any time someone opposes an idea no matter how silly the reason, it's automatically wrong)

Now, I'm against hitting kids, but those arguments sucked. It got to the point where any arguments from the pro CP side would be met with a copy and pasting of the above argument. Extremely annoying and childish, like putting your fingers in your ears shouting "LA LA LA LA".

A more recent example is what I like to call the 'privilege cookie' argument. It's used by SJWs vilifying those they think are privileged (mainly white cis men). Typically, they'll accuse white men of being rapists, murderers, ect. But when they correct them and say that they are none of those things, the SJW will sarcastically say "Oh, you want a cookie for that?"

No, fuckhole, but I would like you to stop blaming me for things that I didn't do.

[Canarr]

I find the misuse of statistics and the wrongful use of facts more annoying. Like translating the (already questionable) claim of 2% false rape accusations into the "conclusion" that 98% of rape charges must thus be true. And, of course, the classic of accusing your critics: if you question the questionable facts, you're part of the problem.

Here's an example for that: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/obe...rting-racists/

EDIT: not to mention my favorite pet peeve: trying to silence dissenting voices and theories, interrupting debates or presentations, chasing off unwanted speakers.

[TheHuckster]

The CP example is an instance of an annoying scenario I encounter where you agree with the end viewpoint of the people on your side (e.g. hitting kids is wrong) but you have to either ignore their horribly articulated arguments and side with them (in which case you're lumped in with a bunch of morons who use every fallacy to make their weak points) or you have to play devil's advocate and explain to them why their arguments are weak (in which case you're lumped in with people who beat up children, because if you're disagreeing with the way they are arguing, you must be on the other side).

A more recent example is what I like to call the 'privilege cookie' argument. It's used by SJWs vilifying those they think are privileged (mainly white cis men). Typically, they'll accuse white men of being rapists, murderers, ect. But when they correct them and say that they are none of those things, the SJW will sarcastically say "Oh, you want a cookie for that?"

That's an instance of a bullying debate tactic that has been around for a very long time. Basically you just force the person to take a defensive position, usually via a strawman or a more direct ad hominem attack, and then after they defend themselves claiming not to be the strawman they are projected to be, are chastised for it. I see it a lot not only among "serious" debaters, but it's a common troll technique used to simply rile someone up.

not to mention my favorite pet peeve: trying to silence dissenting voices and theories, interrupting debates or presentations, chasing off unwanted speakers.

Go into any religious debate, and you'll see that being committed by religious zealots and militant atheists alike. Once you see a thread quickly spiral into madness due to someone uttering the words "God" which gets the militant atheists boiling or "Darwin" which gets the zealots boiling, just back away from it and never look back, lest you turn into a pillar of salt.

[Rageaholic]

I find the misuse of statistics and the wrongful use of facts more annoying. Like translating the (already questionable) claim of 2% false rape accusations into the "conclusion" that 98% of rape charges must thus be true. And, of course, the classic of accusing your critics: if you question the questionable facts, you're part of the problem.

Here's an example for that: http://www.thirdbasepolitics.com/obe...rting-racists/

EDIT: not to mention my favorite pet peeve: trying to silence dissenting voices and theories, interrupting debates or presentations, chasing off unwanted speakers.

This reminds me of another bad tactic that's a combo of both, labling someone a 'rape apologist' or a 'victim blamer' to shame them out of holding different views (ie; questioning the statistics). One of the most common is accusing someone of being a misogynist for being critical of feminism.

[Gravekeeper]

Ugh, are we really going down the "SJW" road?

You brought up a forum argument from 10 years ago just complain about "SJW"'s?

A term which only rose to prominence thanks to the fuckstorm of GG?

I got called an SJW the other day for objecting to Neo Nazi's attacking immigrant children in Europe.

[HYHYBT]

Ugh, are we really going down the "SJW" road?

You brought up a forum argument from 10 years ago just complain about "SJW"'s?

A term which only rose to prominence thanks to the fuckstorm of GG?

I got called an SJW the other day for objecting to Neo Nazi's attacking immigrant children in Europe.

If the site's closing down, might as well drag up everything old and fight it all out again. Call it a retrospective.

(No, of course I'm not serious.)

[Rageaholic]

Ugh, are we really going down the "SJW" road?

You brought up a forum argument from 10 years ago just complain about "SJW"'s?

A term which only rose to prominence thanks to the fuckstorm of GG?

I got called an SJW the other day for objecting to Neo Nazi's attacking immigrant children in Europe.

I don't know what else I'd call these people (those who take a militant 'us vs them' approach to social issues). Besides, it's just a term; a term that some are going to abuse.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't know what else I'd call these people (those who take a militant 'us vs them' approach to social issues). Besides, it's just a term; a term that some are going to abuse.

Assholes? Zealots? I don't know, there's plenty to choose from. And its not "just a term" that "some are going to abuse".

The term was non-existent pre-gamergate and after they drudged it up to dismiss all criticism, post-gamergate its basically used chiefly by assholes to dismiss anyone calling them out on being assholes.

Pre-gamergate I'd never even heard the term. Post-gamergate I get called it all the time on web forums. Typical in response to calling out or not agreeing with someone's hateful bullshit about non-whites and/or women. Though sometimes in response to simply citing facts that counters someone's bullshit narrative about women and brown people.

Suggesting the world has not achieved perfect gender equality? SJW.
Citing the UN studies on equality and refugees? SJW.
Objecting to calls for violence? SJW.
Think walling off Mexico is a stupid and implausible idea? SJW.
Don't like Nazis? SJW. >.>

Now, my worldview certainly didn't undergo a wild transformation overnight during GG. All that changed was someone gave assholes a new word to be assholes with.

[Greenday]

My biggest debate pet peeve is people who argue their side, but constantly claim ignorance when their argument gets blown out of the water.

I have a coworker who just repeats crap his parents say but when wrong (regularly), he says he doesn't actually research the stuff. So why debate it if you refuse to inform yourself first? Anecdotal experience doesn't replace research.

[Kheldarson]

The term was non-existent pre-gamergate and after they drudged it up to dismiss all criticism, post-gamergate its basically used chiefly by assholes to dismiss anyone calling them out on being assholes.l

I'd seen it lots before gamergate. Mostly in argument over how cultural icons were being used in webcomics.

[Gravekeeper]

I'd seen it lots before gamergate. Mostly in argument over how cultural icons were being used in webcomics.

Weird place to find it. But still, doesn't change that it wasn't really in the interweb's consciousness prior to the shitstorm that popularized it amongst a certain sub-culture of assholes.

From what I gather it had somewhat of a specific definition prior to the shitstorm. But all meaning was lost since.

[Stormraven]

I've never even heard the term, so have no idea what it even means.

[Canarr]

Suggesting the world has not achieved perfect gender equality? SJW.
Citing the UN studies on equality and refugees? SJW.
Objecting to calls for violence? SJW.
Think walling off Mexico is a stupid and implausible idea? SJW.
Don't like Nazis? SJW. >.>

Now, my worldview certainly didn't undergo a wild transformation overnight during GG. All that changed was someone gave assholes a new word to be assholes with.

I agree that it's fairly useless to use "SJW" as a derogatoy term, since - to my understanding - nobody really uses the term to describe themselves. Not to mention, it's a shitty debate tactic in itself: trying to devalue someone's opinion by giving him such a derisive nickname.

Although I have to agree that, in my experience, the use of agressive and/or dishonest debate tactics abounds among those who profess to argue for a noble cause, be they Anti-Sexism, Anti-Racism, or whatnot. Whether it's shaming tactics, dishonest use of statistics, silencing of critics... all that and more is done in the name of a "Just Cause".

Not that Racists or Sexists hold any moral high ground here; on the contrary. Maybe I just notice it more, because of the discrepancy between someone claiming to be "fighting the good fight" and then using the tactics of the bad guys.

[Gravekeeper]

Not that Racists or Sexists hold any moral high ground here; on the contrary. Maybe I just notice it more, because of the discrepancy between someone claiming to be "fighting the good fight" and then using the tactics of the bad guys.

Well, remember the "bad guys" also think they are fighting the good fight for a just cause so...

[Rageaholic]

I agree that it's fairly useless to use "SJW" as a derogatoy term, since - to my understanding - nobody really uses the term to describe themselves. Not to mention, it's a shitty debate tactic in itself: trying to devalue someone's opinion by giving him such a derisive nickname.

Although I have to agree that, in my experience, the use of agressive and/or dishonest debate tactics abounds among those who profess to argue for a noble cause, be they Anti-Sexism, Anti-Racism, or whatnot. Whether it's shaming tactics, dishonest use of statistics, silencing of critics... all that and more is done in the name of a "Just Cause".

Not that Racists or Sexists hold any moral high ground here; on the contrary. Maybe I just notice it more, because of the discrepancy between someone claiming to be "fighting the good fight" and then using the tactics of the bad guys.

Pretty much this.

And I agree that labeling someone an SJW (or White Knight or Mangina or any other undesirable term) is a bad tactic. It can easily turn into a Hitler Ate Sugar argument in which being concerned with something like LGBT rights is deemed bad because of the actions of extremists. But what makes the extremists bad isn't their pro LGBT stance, it's their shaming, bullying, silencing of 'problematic' speech, vilifying others because of their 'privilege' (aka: white males), and acting like religious extremists that makes them bad.