Definitions by Dumu The Void

Inverted Strawman Fallacy

A specific form of strawman where the person inverts the typical dynamic by claiming that the term used to describe them doesn't apply because they don't understand it. The classic "you can't call me racist because I don't know what racism means." This inverts the strawman: instead of misrepresenting someone's position, they misrepresent the term's applicability, using their own ignorance as a shield. The fallacy lies in making the validity of a description depend on the described person's vocabulary rather than their actions.

"He used racial slurs, but when called racist, said 'I don't even know what racism is, so you can't call me that.' That's Inverted Strawman Fallacy—making his ignorance the standard for judgment. But actions define racism, not vocabulary. Not knowing the word doesn't make the deed disappear. Ignorance as innocence is a con, not a defense."

Inverted Strawman Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy

An inverted strawman where the person denies the applicability of a term by claiming ignorance of its meaning. The classic form: someone accused of racism says "you can't call me racist because I don't even know what racism means." The move uses claimed ignorance as a shield—if I don't know the term, the term can't apply to me. The fallacy lies in treating ignorance as innocence, not knowing as not being. But actions have meanings regardless of the actor's vocabulary. Not knowing what racism means doesn't mean your actions aren't racist; it just means you're ignorant, not innocent.

But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy "I pointed out his pattern of discriminatory comments. Response: 'I don't even know what racism means, so you can't call me racist!' That's But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy—using ignorance as a defense. Not knowing the word doesn't mean the behavior isn't real. Ignorance isn't innocence; it's just ignorance."

But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

But You Said So Fallacy

A variation of the strawman fallacy where the strawman is constructed based on terms the person used to describe themselves or their position. "But you said you were X, so you must believe Y" becomes a way of distorting positions by taking self-descriptions out of context or pushing them to extremes. The fallacy lies in using someone's own words against them in ways that misrepresent their actual position—turning self-description into caricature, identity into ideology.

"I said I'm patriotic. Response: 'So you support everything the government does? But You Said So Fallacy—taking my self-description and pushing it to absurd extremes. Patriotic doesn't mean unquestioning; it means loving my country, which includes critiquing it. Using my words against me in ways I never intended is strawman by quotation."

But You Said So Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Logical Neutrality Fallacy

The denial that, in practical contexts, logic is not neutral—that power struggles and vested interests operate through logic, and that logic is a space of power just like science and academia. The fallacy lies in insisting that logic floats free of human interests, that logical standards are universal and impartial, when in fact what counts as logical, whose logic counts, and how logic is applied all reflect power relations. Logical Neutrality Fallacy is what happens when privilege becomes invisible—those with logical privilege assume their logic is just logic, not one logic among many backed by institutional power.

"Logic is neutral—it doesn't care who's using it!" That's Logical Neutrality Fallacy—denying that power shapes what counts as logical. But whose logic? Applied by whom? Enforced in what contexts? Western classical logic has power; indigenous logics don't. Logic isn't neutral when one logic gets to define what logic is. Neutrality is a myth; power is real."

Logical Neutrality Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Logical Excuse Fallacy

A fallacy where you accuse your opponent of committing logical fallacies specifically to avoid dealing with the content of their arguments. The move uses "that's a fallacy" as a conversation-ender, not a genuine critique. Instead of showing why something is fallacious and what that means, the accuser simply labels and dismisses. The fallacy lies in treating fallacy identification as refutation—as if naming the error does the work of argument. Real fallacy analysis requires showing why the fallacy matters, how it affects the argument, and what remains after it's removed. Logical Excuse Fallacy skips all that and just declares victory.

Logical Excuse Fallacy "He spent the whole debate saying 'that's a straw man,' 'that's ad hominem,' 'that's hasty generalization'—never once engaging what I actually said. That's Logical Excuse Fallacy—using fallacy names as excuses to avoid argument. Real critique engages; labeling just dismisses. The fallacies may have been real; the excuse was the point."

Logical Excuse Fallacy by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Argumentum Ad Probationem

The classic "you are proving my point" fallacy—a form of Argumentum Ad Te where the responder claims that the opponent's response, tone, or very engagement demonstrates the truth of the original position. "You're proving my point by getting angry." "Your response proves exactly what I was saying." The move turns any engagement into evidence against you: if you respond emotionally, you're proving their point about emotionalism; if you respond calmly, you're proving their point about detachment; if you don't respond, you're proving their point about avoidance. It's a rhetorical trap with no exit—any response is reframed as confirmation. The fallacy lies in treating engagement as evidence, rather than addressing what's actually said.

Argumentum Ad Probationem "I calmly explained why I disagreed. Response: 'See? You're proving my point by being so defensive.' That's Argumentum Ad Probationem—using my engagement as evidence, not addressing my arguments. Defensive? I was calm. But even if I were defensive, that doesn't address my points. It's a trap: any response proves them right."

Argumentum Ad Probationem by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Argumentum Ad Accusationem

A form of Argumentum Ad Te where the focus shifts to accusing the opponent based on their argument rather than dealing with the argument's content. "You're just accusing" becomes a way of dismissing claims without engagement. The move reframes substantive critique as mere accusation, then dismisses the accusation as unworthy of response. It's a meta-dodge: instead of addressing what was said, you address the act of saying it—treating critique as attack, analysis as accusation. The fallacy lies in using the form of the response (it's an accusation) to avoid its content.

"I documented patterns of unfair treatment. Response: 'You're just accusing—that's Argumentum Ad Accusationem.' By calling it accusation, they avoid the documentation. Maybe it's accusation; maybe it's evidence. The label doesn't settle it, but it lets them feel justified in not engaging. Accusation as a magic word that makes critique disappear."

Argumentum Ad Accusationem by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026