I’ve always referred to it as cognitive dissonance.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Gish galloping I think? If they're repeatedly asking you to prove the argument false that falls under sealioning too. It's also a very common tactic for some trolls to pretend to be civil in order to bypass suspicion.
In politics it's been called "flooding the zone"
Could also qualify as "sandbagging" or simply "bad faith"
it's called arguing in bad faith, or more specifically argument ad nauseum
ad nauseum
Thanks, this is an exact description.
Small nitpick: It is spelled ad nauseam.
Repeatedly using a blatantly false assertion is called the Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). The derailing/zone flooding aspect, as @NOT_RICK@lemmy.world stated, is a Gish Gallop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop). There might be a term for using these together, but I am not aware of of what it might be.
Neither of these really apply?
The big lie refers to a very big lie, but OP is talking about something subtle.
A gish gallop refers to many lies, such that an opponent cant refute all of them, but OP is talking about one lie.
I think this is just a form of propaganda. If you really want a name then maybe Ad Nauseum.
Tricky to moderate. You need to identify, and have objective evidence of, a pattern of behaviour from a user. It needs to be enough that an independent ambivalent third party would agree that the intent is propaganda. I think this is kinda impossible honestly.
If its a small ~~fiefdom~~ community, just ban them.
Astroturfing?
Unfortunately, it is a split issue, so both sides get some support.
I don't know what you're describing is called, but since the world is measured flat and I, for one, didn't evolve from monkeys, your point is moot. Respectfully.
Well… it might surprise you, considering the context of your comment but you are partly correct: Humans did in fact not evolve from Monkeys.
Tap for spoiler
monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
I thank you for your polite, informative comment. However, I still didn't evolve from any monkey. Maybe you and your Glober friends did, but not me. Good luck in your endeavors!
I can feel a hint of the confused anger I would have felt if this was real. Good job.
Sounds like maybe a Gish gallop?
It would be a Gish gallop if they do some brigading; that's how they usually scare off OP. Since he did not know he was making a controversial statement, and did not pre-emptively stop the Gish Gallop.
Being a shithead. Master this "skill" and you can lead nations.
sealioning ?
This one I've always been wary of. I studied philosophy so I know a bit about arguments and sealioning is unusual because it can only really take place over the internet where someone is asking questions in bad faith and you can't 100% call them out because you don't know their identity for sure. Firstly I don't like the idea that questions can be bad faith - especially seemingly trivial or obvious ones - since that goes against the Socratic method of questioning all your beliefs/shibboleths. Secondly, it is so context dependent that I think it is hard to universalise it like you can do with other fallacies like false dilemma (everyone is either a tequila or a whisky person, etc.)
Actually it's quite funny, if you take a broad interpretation of sealioning that does not involve the internet, Ancient Athens sentenced Socrates to death for "sealioning" in 400BC lol.
Well, sealions do go barefoot, even in winter.
Sea lioning is pretending to be interested in a reasonable discussion when you're really looking to wind someone up until they lose their temper.