Explore fallacies named after internet adages and laws, including their misapplication in reasoning. These patterns have emerged from online culture and discourse, representing both descriptive observations about internet behavior and their inappropriate use as logical arguments.
Reasoning error that occurs when the observation that online discussions increasingly mention Hitler or Nazis as they continue is either (1) misused to dismiss all Nazi comparisons as automatically invalid, or (2) interpreted to mean that making such comparisons ends the argument in one's favor. The fallacy lies in treating the empirical observation (comparisons become more likely over time) as a logical rule about comparison validity.
Reasoning error that occurs when the observation that extreme views are difficult to distinguish from parodies of those views is misused to either (1) dismiss genuine extreme positions as 'probably satire' to avoid taking them seriously, or (2) assume satirical content is genuine to discredit an opposing view. The fallacy lies in using the ambiguity itself as a conclusion rather than investigating the actual intent or treating uncertainty as license to assume whichever interpretation is convenient.
Reasoning error that occurs when the observation that 'the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer' is misused to either (1) justify spreading misinformation as an information-gathering strategy, (2) excuse one's own errors as deliberate tactics, or (3) treat all corrections as evidence of prior strategic wrongness rather than honest mistakes.
Reasoning error that occurs when the observation that 'any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no' is either (1) misused to automatically dismiss all question headlines without reading content, or (2) interpreted as a logical rule about truth rather than a pattern about journalistic practices and clickbait. The fallacy lies in treating a humorous generalization about media incentives as determining the answer to specific questions.
Reasoning error that occurs when a policy, practice, or belief is argued to be wrong solely because it was endorsed or practiced by Hitler, Nazis, or other universally condemned figures, without establishing a relevant causal or logical connection between the association and the actual merit of the position. This fallacy uses emotional association with evil to substitute for substantive criticism.