Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

313

What the MSM does, and has always done, is to back every piece of narrative up with a single piece of justification, in a way that makes normies think the narrative is sound and can't be debated further.

  • Example: all men are privileged because (reason)

  • Or: silence is the same as violence because (reason)

The reason given is always a highbrow sounding one, so that normies revere the narrative. When Trump gave people simple reasons normies just mocked him for talking at their level.

When I used to be blue pilled I would often accept the reason given without questioning whether it was telling the whole story or whether there might be 100 other reasons why the narrative view was garbage, unless they were talking about my own field of course.

Anyway, there's a clear logical fallacy in accepting a comfortable "expert" narrative as true based on an unbalanced justification like this. But what's it called?

I feel like if we can name that fallacy in terminology that normies haven't learned yet, then we have a tool to shut down normies with on social media, in the very way they've been trained to accept.

  • Example: "correction: all men are not privileged, that's an example of (......) fallacy".

  • Or: "correction: silence is not violence, that's an example of (.......) fallacy"

That's it. Done. Normie has been put back in his place with a high brow response that doesn't give him room to argue back. Call him a conspiracy theorist if he tries.

What the MSM does, and has always done, is to back every piece of narrative up with a single piece of justification, in a way that makes normies think the narrative is sound and can't be debated further. - Example: all men are privileged because (reason) - Or: silence is the same as violence because (reason) The reason given is always a highbrow sounding one, so that normies revere the narrative. When Trump gave people simple reasons normies just mocked him for talking at their level. When I used to be blue pilled I would often accept the reason given without questioning whether it was telling the whole story or whether there might be 100 other reasons why the narrative view was garbage, unless they were talking about my own field of course. Anyway, there's a clear logical fallacy in accepting a comfortable "expert" narrative as true based on an unbalanced justification like this. But what's it called? **I feel like if we can name that fallacy in terminology that normies haven't learned yet, then we have a tool to shut down normies with on social media, in the very way they've been trained to accept.** - Example: "correction: all men are not privileged, that's an example of (......) fallacy". - Or: "correction: silence is not violence, that's an example of (.......) fallacy" That's it. Done. Normie has been put back in his place with a high brow response that doesn't give him room to argue back. Call him a conspiracy theorist if he tries.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

The problem is that even in the examples given, any number of fallacies could be at fault. Example: all men are privileged because (reason)

Reasons:

  1. Celebrity Science Man said it
  2. One obscure study from Columbia University said it
  3. Here's a heartrending tale of an oppressed woman
  4. Everyone knows it.
  5. Saudis don't allow their women to drive cars

And so on. Fallacies are practically endless, whereas logic follows a very strict path. The names in order:

  1. Appeal to authority
  2. Cherry picking
  3. Appeal to emotion &/or anecdotal
  4. Bandwagon
  5. Composition/Division (what's true of some isn't true of all.

Ironically, if you point out a fallacy and argue that their conclusion is therefore wrong, you're committing the fallacy fallacy. I can argue that eating only meat is healthiest because it's what our ancestors did in the ice age, but you pointing out that that's the naturalistic fallacy doesn't mean that the carnivore diet isn't best, only that I haven't proven my case.

I find that only a few people care about logic. It's worth a shot though, so good luck!

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Correct. Calling out fallacies is all well and good but the fact of the matter is that this idiot watching TV now has one piece of evidence/reasoning to defend his position. If he never encounters evidence of the contrary you can hardly blame him for going along with the TV. Yes he's a lazy piece of shit for not actively seeking evidence but there's a reason they're called idiots.

Presenting as much evidence as possible to counter what the TV says is more effective than just finger wagging about fallacies.

[–] • 1 pt

By the way, I love your idea. We need to NAME everything. Things that are NAMED get noticed.

"Racism" is just a word. But that word, with it's (((friends))) has literally changed the world.

[–] • 1 pt

The "Single Totality" fallacy.

You justify your belief (incorrectly) by placing placing it TOTALLY on one SINGLE piece of (often irrelevant) information.

[–] • 0 pt

I like it. It needs to be a term that the left hasn't already indoctrinated everyone with, so people are learning something new rather than bickering over something old.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree. I've shared this opinion for a while. We need to create NAMES for every single trick and behavior that is used to manipulate is. Things that are NAMED are NOTICED.

[–] • 0 pt

I think we don't naturally do this because unlike the left, many of us don't naturally rely on labels to do our thinking for us.

[–] • 0 pt

It's a combination of black-and-white thinking (no room for gray areas) and false equivocations. Some of the false equivocations are false dichotomies, for example "Wear a Mask or Get the Vax." How about neither? The way out of the 'pandemic' isn't compliance; just turn off your fucking phone and TV. I do believe there is a sort of mass psychogenic illness going on, completely driven by mass media and social media messages.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Those are not fallacies because no argument is being made. They are unsubstantiated statements. They are nothing but claims with no evidence presented.

If you're looking for a killphrase that will be effective in shutting them down you're not going to find it. Once nonsense is established as fact through repetition, the burden will be on you to disprove it.

You can try this to shift the perceived burden of proof:

"Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence."

[–] • 0 pt

I like your thinking!

Right wingers generally don't understand leftist language.

When leftists say "privilege", they mean "unfairness".

Why is it being unfair to be white? Because whites are successful. The left and the right both claim there are no biological differences between the races, except superficial ones. The only reasonable conclusion, is that something sinister and unfair is propelling whites to the top.

The only way to combat leftist ideas, is to correct this error. Whites and blacks are not equal. Men and women are not equal. Christianity and Islam are not equal. Decency and degeneracy are not equal. Procreation and sodomy are not equal.

If we want to use logical arguments, we can't let leftists dictate our language.

[–] • 0 pt

Gaslight, lie by omission, absuditum ad infinitum, strawman? Those are the obvious ones.

[–] • 0 pt

Take a look at the strawman argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[–] • 1 pt

I feel like that's been appropriated by the left already. If you use then some genius will always step in to re-educate you on how you need to learn what a strawman argument is.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

The people you would argue with would be completely lost as soon as you mention "false equivalence", because they're stupid enough to commit the logical fallacy to begin with. Of course silence is not violence, but they're right simply because they uttered the phrase with conviction, and you're raycis.

[–] • 0 pt

The take-down isn't written to persuade them, it's to discredit them in the eyes of others who will read their post, who never really care about the substance anyway.

A scholarly 1-line takedown that the audience doesn't necessarily understand but sounds like the original poster is being told off by an academic, means that the "influencer" loses their credibility in the eyes of their own audience.