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."

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."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

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."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Poisoning the Position Fallacy

A political form of Poisoning the Well where a position is discredited by associating it with extreme or reviled ideologies, regardless of the actual views of those who hold it. Accusing all BRICS+ supporters of "Nazbol/Duginism/Z Nationalism" regardless of their actual reasons is a classic example. The move poisons the position by painting anyone who holds it as tainted by association with extremism. The fallacy lies in treating political alignment as evidence of ideology, ignoring the diversity of reasons people might support something. It's guilt by association applied to positions, not just people—poisoning the position so no one can hold it without being tainted.

Poisoning the Position Fallacy "I support BRICS+ because of multipolarity and economic cooperation. Response: 'Oh, so you're a Duginist Nazi-Bolshevik!' That's Poisoning the Position Fallacy—associating my position with extremism to discredit it, regardless of my actual views. My reasons are mine; their associations are theirs. Poisoning the position avoids engaging what I actually think by tarring it with brushes I never touched."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Tu Es Fallacy

A fallacy where one dismisses an opponent's argument by making the opponent themselves the problem—"the issue is you," "you are the common denominator," "the problem is in you." Unlike ad hominem (which attacks character), Tu Es Fallacy focuses on the person as the source of all problems in the discussion, relationship, or situation. It's a move that shifts blame from the argument's content to the arguer's very existence in the conversation. "You are the common factor in all your failed relationships" (therefore your critique of this relationship is invalid). "You're the problem" (therefore nothing you say matters). The fallacy lies in using personhood as refutation—as if being the "common denominator" proves the argument wrong. It's psychological dismissal dressed as insight, therapy-speak as debate tactic.

"She pointed out patterns of behavior in the group. Response: 'You know, you're the common denominator in all these conflicts. Have you considered that the problem is you?' That's Tu Es Fallacy—dismissing her observations by making her the issue. Maybe she's right; maybe she's wrong. But making her the problem avoids addressing what she said. The argument disappears because the arguer becomes the pathology."

by Dumu The Void March 5, 2026

Theory of the Fallacy Spectrum

The theory that fallacies exist on a spectrum, not as a binary category of "fallacious" vs. "valid." The Fallacy Spectrum recognizes that what counts as a fallacy depends on context, purpose, and degree. An argument that's clearly fallacious in a formal debate may be reasonable in everyday conversation; a claim that's somewhat fallacious may still point toward truth; a fallacy that's harmless is different from one that's destructive. The spectrum allows for distinguishing between different kinds and degrees of fallaciousness, for evaluating arguments rather than just labeling them. A hasty generalization from limited data is different from one with no data; an ad hominem that's relevant is different from one that's pure distraction. The Theory of the Fallacy Spectrum calls for mapping where arguments fall on multiple axes of fallaciousness.

Theory of the Fallacy Spectrum Example: "He called every argument he disagreed with 'fallacious.' The Theory of the Fallacy Spectrum showed why that was itself fallacious: fallacies come in degrees. A weak analogy is less fallacious than a complete non sequitur; a relevant ad hominem is less fallacious than a pure attack. The spectrum demanded actual evaluation, not just labeling."

by Dumu The Void March 7, 2026

False Purpose Fallacy

A fallacy and bias where two or more oppressive or repressive systems, institutions, or practices are treated as fundamentally incomparable solely because of their stated or intended purpose, despite producing identical or functionally equivalent harms. The fallacy lies in substituting intent for impact, purpose for consequence. When someone argues that CECOT prison in El Salvador "doesn't compare" to Sednaya prison in Syria because one is for "rehabilitation" (or "fighting gangs") while the other was for political repression, they commit the False Purpose Fallacy—as if the experience of the prisoner, the deprivation of liberty, the violence of the state, and the suffering of the confined were somehow different because the official justification differs. Similarly, when Western AI surveillance is distinguished from authoritarian surveillance because "we're protecting democracy" while "they're controlling dissent," the same fallacy operates: the purpose stated differs, but the surveillance functions similarly. The fallacy is false because purpose does not negate parallel function; good intentions do not transform oppressive machinery into something else; stated goals do not alter lived experience.

Example: "He insisted CECOT wasn't comparable to Sednaya because El Salvador was 'fighting gangs' while Syria was 'crushing dissent'—pure False Purpose Fallacy, as if prisoners experience their cages differently based on the press releases justifying their imprisonment."

by Dumu The Void March 13, 2026