actionist

A person that treats others based on the way that person acts and treats other people. An actionist is not a racist, even though some actionist trends might loosely follow race lines.

Person 1: You're a racist! You kicked that black guy in front of you because he is black.
Person 2. No, I'm an actionist. I kicked him because he pushed me out of the way to cut in the line and then dropped a SBD fart.

by zbrcht January 19, 2009

actionista

An actionista is someone who is about it. Someone edged. Someone on the go. Confident in their abililty to handle people or situations so they don't need to waste time thinking or talking about it, they do it. Could be applied to anyone serious about making something happen. When the word was first used though by me I specifically meant it to refer to paid female companions - escorts that were the real deal.

When you get tired of dealing in fantasy and you're ready for the real thing you'll seek an actionista for fullfillment.

by Ms.J. October 11, 2012

Actionè

The act of having or creating action. The use of the word creates a feeling of elation and apprehension towards a task or event for example:

"Ian and John are going out for a big, marlin, derby day actionè!"

by WordallySmart January 23, 2019

actionista

A designer, promoter, or follower of fashion that expresses and promotes progressive social, cultural, or political change through their clothing or appearance.

person one. Cassidy is a legit actionista.
person two: Yes, they wore their Pro Choice shirt to mass.

by SpeakOUT March 24, 2023

Argumentum Ad Actione

A fallacy where someone focuses on the actions, behavior, or perceived motives of the person making an argument rather than engaging the argument's content. "Look what they did" becomes a way of dismissing what they say. The fallacy lies in treating action as evidence about truth—as if someone's behavior determines whether their claims are correct. But people can act badly and still speak truth; people can act virtuously and still be wrong. Argumentum Ad Actione is ad hominem applied to behavior rather than character, but it's still avoiding the content.

"She made excellent points about economic inequality. Response: 'But she drives an expensive car—she's a hypocrite!' That's Argumentum Ad Actione—focusing on her actions, not her arguments. Maybe she's hypocritical; maybe not. Either way, her arguments about inequality stand or fall on their own. Actions don't refute claims; they just provide distraction."

by Abzugal February 28, 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