When a word is forcefully broadened to the point where it loses its purpose, not through natural evolution, but for the sake of inclusion or ideology. Broadening something so much it renders its purpose non existent or lesser as a result.
“The sky is grey”
“What? It’s blue!”
“Grey just means any color that isn’t white!””
“That’s just a dilution fallacy, grey means a specific color, spontaneously ditching that for your opinion is insane!”
Alternatively:
“Let Timmy have a drivers license!”
“But he can’t drive!”
“Don’t worry, drivers licenses are meant to include everyone! It just means anyone with an interest in qualifying for driving!”
“That’s just a dilution fallacy, it no longer means what it’s supposed to!”
“What? It’s blue!”
“Grey just means any color that isn’t white!””
“That’s just a dilution fallacy, grey means a specific color, spontaneously ditching that for your opinion is insane!”
Alternatively:
“Let Timmy have a drivers license!”
“But he can’t drive!”
“Don’t worry, drivers licenses are meant to include everyone! It just means anyone with an interest in qualifying for driving!”
“That’s just a dilution fallacy, it no longer means what it’s supposed to!”
by NathanMcCulley June 12, 2025
Get the Dilution Fallacymug. The mistaken belief that the truth lies somewhere in between to opposing propositions.
Man "It's the women!"
Woman "It's the men!"
Sophist "Well... *Insert middle-ground fallacy*"
Hym "Wrong! I can prove it! By asking a simple question: What is the selection criteria? If it is 6ft tall (14.5%), Six figure salary (17%), 6 inch+ dick (16%) and we omit overlap and assume women are willing to settle for 1 out of the 3, we have only 47% of men who can meet the selection criteria. If THAT is what constitutes 'The best man available' (in the context of hypergamy) AND if we assume that Jordan is correct in saying that they should all just get married and start a family, What are the OTHER 53% of women supposed to do? For that to work, over HALF the women STILL have to CHANGE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA. What then? How is that supposed to work? The women don't WANT to do it and are TOLD NOT TO BY PARENTS WHO WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST PARTNER AVAILABLE. The men who have overlapping qualities don't have to do it so their opinions are unlimited. And here we are...
Man "It's the women!"
Woman "It's the men!"
Sophist "Well... *Insert middle-ground fallacy*"
Hym "Wrong! I can prove it! By asking a simple question: What is the selection criteria? If it is 6ft tall (14.5%), Six figure salary (17%), 6 inch+ dick (16%) and we omit overlap and assume women are willing to settle for 1 out of the 3, we have only 47% of men who can meet the selection criteria. If THAT is what constitutes 'The best man available' (in the context of hypergamy) AND if we assume that Jordan is correct in saying that they should all just get married and start a family, What are the OTHER 53% of women supposed to do? For that to work, over HALF the women STILL have to CHANGE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA. What then? How is that supposed to work? The women don't WANT to do it and are TOLD NOT TO BY PARENTS WHO WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST PARTNER AVAILABLE. The men who have overlapping qualities don't have to do it so their opinions are unlimited. And here we are...
What can men do about any of that? 'Try your best!'? 'Strife nobly into the dawn!'?Only 17% of the men CAN have jobs that pay 6 figures or more because THERE ARE A FINITE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT PAY THAT MUCH. What, do you expect them to increase the pay rate of a broader number of job to 6 figures? McDonald's cashier 100,000 a year. Then you can finally get a girlfriend. The other 2 are a roll of the dice. How is it at all men's fault? What is the selection criteria? Broadly? And that middle-ground fallacy applies to the schizophrenia thing too! It's not a matter of 'well, maybe it's a little of both'. At this point it's 'yeah, they're doing the thing they are doing and they have been doing it for years, and now I'm hyper-vigilant about it so I'm looking for it everywhere!' I don't claim to be right all of the time about it. And as a thought experiment I respond to things as though they were said to or about me. But that's not the same!"
by Hym Iam February 27, 2023
Get the Middle-ground fallacymug. When someone calls an an argument a fallacy in order to deflect from its sound reasoning in order to avoid needing to form an actual rebuttal.
You committed the Bullshit Fallacy when you called my argument a fallacy when it's completely logical. Either make an actual argument or shut the fuck up.
by Mr. Walters January 23, 2025
Get the bullshit fallacymug. The mistaken belief that an argument is valid or true simply because it uses complex, scientific-sounding, or technical language—regardless of whether the content makes any actual sense.
“Quantum vibrations in your DNA resonate with the cosmic frequency of abundance, aligning you with the higher dimensional matrix of manifestation.”
“Wow, that sounds deep!”
“Nah, bro. That’s just the technobabble fallacy.”
“Wow, that sounds deep!”
“Nah, bro. That’s just the technobabble fallacy.”
by Jo Burn June 5, 2025
Get the Technobabble Fallacymug. "When one tries to ask a question or make an observation and another party immediately accuses them of being part of an unrelated discredited group."
"Hey, I think the government might be cloud-seeding."
"Are you a flat-Earther too?"
"Don't hit me with that Sidecar Fallacy BS... I've seen the patents!"
"Are you a flat-Earther too?"
"Don't hit me with that Sidecar Fallacy BS... I've seen the patents!"
by TooLateBlue July 10, 2023
Get the Sidecar Fallacymug. Pointing out a certain contraband or prohibited action alike which only implies said person pointing it out also knows or is involved in said prohibition.
Though it doesnt have to be immoral, it could just be akward or embarrassing.
Though it doesnt have to be immoral, it could just be akward or embarrassing.
P-hub intro plays
B : hey, you cant watch that here are you crazy?
A : watch what? What am i watching?
B : thats obviously p-hub
A : you know what the intro sounds like??
C : you just proved the p-hub fallacy B
/
B : how do you- yknow, do it with your fingers?
A : oh, 5 inch in the curl
A : i mean, thats what they said! I dont know myself i havent tried anything like that yet.
B : ? Did you just excecute the p-hub fallacy
B : hey, you cant watch that here are you crazy?
A : watch what? What am i watching?
B : thats obviously p-hub
A : you know what the intro sounds like??
C : you just proved the p-hub fallacy B
/
B : how do you- yknow, do it with your fingers?
A : oh, 5 inch in the curl
A : i mean, thats what they said! I dont know myself i havent tried anything like that yet.
B : ? Did you just excecute the p-hub fallacy
by Anoneeneemus December 12, 2024
Get the P-hub fallacymug. When a creator disregards criticism by arguing one cannot know something is bad without having first created something like it before.
Thomas: Wow this literal feces on my plate tastes terrible!
Chef Emil: You can’t criticise my cooking when you have never cooked before!
Thomas: I don’t need to be a professional chef to know feces tastes bad! That’s Emil’s Fallacy
Chef Emil: You can’t criticise my cooking when you have never cooked before!
Thomas: I don’t need to be a professional chef to know feces tastes bad! That’s Emil’s Fallacy
by sneed1492 February 14, 2025
Get the Emil’s Fallacymug.