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

©2026 Poal.co

500

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 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.