We’re all (*) familiar with the basic “logical fallacies” – flaws in reasoning that weaken or invalidate arguments. Things like the “ad hominen” (attacking the person rather than their argument), “appeal to authority” (comparing credentials rather than arguing the facts), “tu quoque” (comparing an argument with previous argument) and so on. 

I’m here to submit a few new ones. 

“Ad Foxinem” – claiming that someone’s argument is invalid because they supposedly “watch Fox News”. (And yes, the same applies to MSNow. Or would, if anyone watched it. That was an “Appeal to Ridicule” for those paying attention). 

“The Epstein Fallacy” – claiming that someone’s argument on an unrelated matter is false because the Epstein Files haven’t been released. 

“Argumentum ad Terminus” – believing that ending an argument by saying or typeing “Period” or “Full stop” makes an argument, whatever its merits, absolutely solid. 

“Faux Possibilitus – starting a claim with “What if I told you that…” does not make the claim true”. 

The Shifted Burden Fallacy: Ending a claim – solid or absurd – with “prove me wrong”. 

And “Argumentum ad LOL” – Ending your response to an argument with “LOL” is absolutely factually dispositive”. This is closely relate to the “Argumentum tu Emoji” – attacking an argument with an emoticon (for instance, the passive-aggressive “Laugh” emoji). 

Also – “Ad Omniciens” – responding to an argument with “Not EVERYONE believes that” (or its sibling, “Many people believe…”, also known as “the NPR Assertion”). 

“Argumentum pro Tantrum” – regardless of the merits of the argument, if you don’t acquiesce without question, I will unfriend you and never talk with you again. 

Discusss.

(*) I’m feeling optimistic, so sue me.

 

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Monday, February 23rd, 2026 at 7:03 am and is filed under Culture War, mitch. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.