Required reading for internet arguments

I'm talking about this post.

tl;dr: Name-dropping logical fallacies isn't enough to make a good refutation. You have to explain why something is bad reasoning.

I can understand why fallacy-dropping is popular. It's flashy and glib. It gives you the sort of sub-rational self-satisfaction that comes with making a witty insult, but allows you the pretense of politeness and objectivity. But it's also vacuous showboating. You're just demonstrating that you've memorized a bunch of cool names, not that they've understood what they're disagreeing with. Pretty much every forum is littered with smug shitposts that read something like "Wow, nice strawman there," because it's easier to do that than to actually engage what someone else says. It's positively Twitter-tastic!

Also, here's a comic about this sort of thing.

Comments

[Knowledge]

You might not care for my opinion, but I will leave it here. You can read it if you want or ignore it, in which case it practically does not exist.

I will start by saying I liked the links and can sympathize a great deal with your position.

I am not sure what is unique about internet arguments, so I will ignore the qualification. There are arguments in which you are essentially fighting with someone, there are arguments where you are trying to get at the truth, and then there are arguments where you are trying to beat the "truth" into someone. I am partial to the second category philosophically speaking, but I would be lying if I was not human and did the other two on frequent enough occasion.

People who name-drop fallacies are essentially trying to take the power position. The ecstasy of having power, which is natural reward for satisfying the need for safety in eliminating threats and recognition from ones peers, is one of the factors behind the third category of arguments. You address this in your post with colorful examples.

On the flip side, saying you are above those who name-drop fallacies and that you know better than them is to mirror them in a sense. To denounce is to simultaneously raise up as a wrong assumes a right in most cases. I am not saying your position is wrong because it resembles what you are arguing against, but rather that the reason you wrote this post is something upon which to reflect. One can be completely right in the factual and moral sense, but have all the wrong personal reasons. I feel quite strongly about knowing why we say things and being honest about that because I know first hand how being right can be an excuse for authority and a bludgeon against the wrong.

I would assume that you are angered and frustrated with some people you encountered, but I cannot know that. These are not bad emotions and shouldn't stop you from writing what you think. One should feel indignation at wrongs. It can help us pinpoint what is actually wrong, but it can also exaggerate and make logical jumps to compensate for reason we lack, especially when we feel that other side should be wrong.

I can apply this self-reflection upon myself. For instance, I like propagating my thinking in others, especially in those who have read my words in the past. Some might say my wordiness, especially its self-centered purpose, is reflective of a vice. I accept it as a part of myself that has its ups and downs. The recognition of the ups allows me to continue to write while the downs caution me from forcing my talkativeness upon everyone, instead giving to those I trust to some degree. This acceptance allows me to write this comment.