Alien Hominid Invasion

A terrible remake of one of the best games ever made by the Behemoth

guy 1: "i love alien hominid invasion, its my favorite videogame of all time"
guy 2: "im gonna jerk off inside you tonight"

by ticorza September 12, 2023

Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

Incorrectly crying "Ad Hominem!" when someone makes a relevant critique of the speaker's background, motives, or qualifications that legitimately affects the argument's weight. Not all personal remarks are fallacious; only those irrelevant to the topic are. This fallacy fallacy weaponizes the term to immunize speakers from any scrutiny of their bias, conflicts of interest, or expertise, treating all such scrutiny as an illegitimate personal attack.

Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy Example: A politician arguing for deregulating Big Pharma is revealed to hold millions in pharmaceutical stock. A commentator notes this clear conflict of interest. The politician's supporters scream "Ad hominem!" This is the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy. The financial motive is not a petty insult; it's a devastatingly relevant fact for assessing the argument's integrity.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Argumentum Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argumentum Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

by Abzugal February 28, 2026