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 fallacy mug.Similar to the "appeal to authority fallacy," this occurs when an individual treats the output of an AI as absolute truth—rather than making their own argument—believing the AI to be a kind of deific superintelligence (perhaps more objective than any human authority). The information is accepted uncritically, without independent evaluation. This tendency is often observed among intellectually disengaged individuals online who are unable or unwilling to present a logically sound case of their own.
Tim: Presents a compelling case using his own reasoning.
Grug: “Oh yeah? Well, here’s what the AI said.” Posts erroneous AI output—likely without critically analyzing it.
Jon (onlooker): “There’s the appeal to AI fallacy again! Just because an AI made a claim, that doesn’t make it true—or even reasonable.”
Grug: “Oh yeah? Well, here’s what the AI said.” Posts erroneous AI output—likely without critically analyzing it.
Jon (onlooker): “There’s the appeal to AI fallacy again! Just because an AI made a claim, that doesn’t make it true—or even reasonable.”
by L Currie April 12, 2025
Get the Appeal to AI fallacy mug.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 Fallacy mug.