this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
210 points (97.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40730 readers
1063 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am aware of

  • Sea-lioning
  • Gaslighting
  • Gish-Galloping
  • Dogpiling

I want to know I theres any others I'm not aware of

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anachrohack@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Whataboutism

"Russia invaded ukraine! Putin must be held accountable!"

"Yeah well what about Iraq, 2003???"

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 34 minutes ago

That's the "tu quoque", aka "you too" argument evasion

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 35 minutes ago

Check out Rational Wiki's page on logical fallacies https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is there a word for dragging the argument to near-unrelated topics? E.g, post about lemmy.ml having comments on whether Ukraine has a nazi government.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I believe that's "whataboutism"?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You forget the most common one of all, lying.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

That's part gishgalloping part gaslighting, no?

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 13 points 8 hours ago

"Thought-terminating clichés"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

Also... I don't think it has a name, but dubiously claiming any of these examples in an argument. Maybe it'd just be called "deflection".

I've seen so many valid arguments shutdown as whataboutism, sealioning, concern trolling when they were valid arguments. It's just as much bullshit as actually doing any of those things.

[–] reactionality@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Appeal to fallacies is the self-important idiot's way out of replying to someone's argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Fallacy accusations.

When someone does not want to argue about your points they will attack the way you used to made them. If you check hard enough you can find fallacies in most online conversations. So if someone wants they could easily accuse anyone of making this or that fallacy. Some of them being also kind of subjective. Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?

They would just change the debate subject and put you on the defensive defending yourself of making fallacies.

I just usually point out this attitude and end the debate when this happens.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is there a fallacy fallacy? where people assume that because something has a fallacy its wrong, or they accuse something of having a non-existant fallacy?

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

There are a few phallic fallacies for sure.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

A fallacy matters if it’s central to proving the argument, otherwise it probably doesn’t. Eg Bringing up an anecdote, or a subjective experience as a way of illustrating a point could be said to be fallacious, but is not, if the argument is well supported enough that would stand without it.

I just had an argument where I ended my point with the words “this is a pure could have been:” and added a very likely scenario that may well could have come to pass it some events were different. Obviously it was speculation and not central to the previous argument, but in my estimation likely.

Then other person instead of responding to actual points took the last part and accused me of should’a, would’a, could’a.

Dude, yes! But not the point, also I was the one that pointed it out. The type of person that would explain to a comedian their own joke.

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 11 points 13 hours ago

Man that's such a strawman, you're completely misrepresenting why they bring up fallacies.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The one I see the most is just playing dumb and pretending not to understand basic things

[–] inzen@lemm.ee 18 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

That may or may not be a technique.

[–] toddestan@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Depending on what they are doing, it can be a form of sea-lioning.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sometimes they're genuinely dumb, but often it's obvious that they know, and they know you know.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

That would be sea-lioning.

[–] optimistic@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago

It's bad food. I get into bad hungry defensive moods with bad food.

[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Someone started talking about my hair in the profile picture on a discussion on another site because they didn't agree with what I said.

When people do shit like this I just disengage. Life is too short to waste with bad faith arguments.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Ad-Hominen attack, I think its called.

[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Ad hominem. Yes, that's it.

load more comments
view more: next ›