When someone repeats an argument that has been proven false /badly argued many times before, but keeps repeating it in hopes of drowning out opposition or derailing a thread. Yet not disruptive enough to get banned on forums, as it wraps itself in non-hostile, nicely written sentences.
How exactly do moderators deal with this kind of behaviour?
24 Comments
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 68 pts · 243d
it's called arguing in bad faith, or more specifically argument ad nauseum
TalkingFlower@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 243d
Thanks, this is an exact description.
mrunicornman@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 242d
Small nitpick: It is spelled ad nauseam.
essell@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 243d
In politics it's been called "flooding the zone"
Could also qualify as "sandbagging" or simply "bad faith"
JayleneSlide@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 243d
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.
fizzle@quokk.au · 11 pts · 243d
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.
fizzle@quokk.au · 15 pts · 243d
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
fiefdomcommunity, just ban them.MightyThistle@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 242d
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.
AmidFuror@fedia.io · 5 pts · 243d
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.
5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org · 6 pts · 243d
Well… it might surprise you, considering the context of your comment but you are partly correct: Humans did in fact not evolve from Monkeys.
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. :::
AmidFuror@fedia.io · 8 pts · 243d
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!
killingspark@feddit.org · 9 pts · 243d
I can feel a hint of the confused anger I would have felt if this was real. Good job.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 243d
Astroturfing?
TalkingFlower@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 243d
Unfortunately, it is a split issue, so both sides get some support.
Rhoeri@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 242d
I’ve always referred to it as cognitive dissonance.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 243d
Sounds like maybe a Gish gallop?
TalkingFlower@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 242d
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.
TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 243d
Being a shithead. Master this "skill" and you can lead nations.
A_A@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 243d
sealioning ?
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 243d
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.
steeznson@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 240d
Maybe OP was meta-posting
steeznson@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 243d
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.)
steeznson@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 243d
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.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 242d
Well, sealions do go barefoot, even in winter.