Arbitrary Non-Correlation Fallacy

A common online debating tactic where someone dismisses a valid connection between two things by arbitrarily declaring them unrelated, often without evidence or reasoning. For example, when you point out that billionaires exist alongside homelessness, and someone responds that "those things have nothing to do with each other"—as if wealth accumulation and poverty exist in separate universes. The arbitrary non-correlation fallacy is the rhetorical equivalent of covering your ears and saying "la la la not connected." It's especially popular in discussions about systemic issues, where acknowledging connections would require acknowledging problems, which is inconvenient when you're trying to defend the status quo.

Example: "She posted a graph showing that as CEO pay skyrocketed, worker wages stagnated. The first comment was pure arbitrary non-correlation fallacy: 'Those two things aren't related. CEO pay is about talent and markets. Worker wages are about productivity. Different things.' She posted five studies showing the connection. He posted 'correlation isn't causation.' She posted the causation studies. He posted 'still not convinced.' The fallacy had done its job: preventing learning, preserving ignorance."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Arbitrary Fallacy

The meta-fallacy of committing a fallacy simply because you've decided that logic doesn't apply to you, your argument, or your preferred conclusions. It's the rhetorical equivalent of playing chess and declaring that your pieces can move however you want because you've decided the rules are arbitrary. The arbitrary fallacy encompasses all other fallacies, but with the added twist that the person committing it knows they're being illogical and simply doesn't care. They've decided that their truth is truer than your facts, their logic is logicaler than your logic, and no amount of reasoning will change their mind because reasoning is just, like, your opinion, man.

Example: "He committed the arbitrary fallacy in every debate. When presented with evidence, he said evidence was unreliable. When presented with logic, he said logic was a Western construct. When asked what he would accept, he said 'common sense,' which meant whatever he already believed. There was no way to win, because he had declared the game rigged and was playing by his own rules, which changed constantly."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Arbitrary Burden of Proof

The meta-fallacy where one side is forced to prove every assertion, back every claim, and satisfy every demand for evidence, while the other side can simply move goalposts, demand new sources, dismiss evidence as insufficient, and never provide anything themselves. The arbitrary burden of proof is the debate equivalent of one person carrying a piano while the other skips ahead, occasionally turning around to complain that the piano-carrier isn't keeping up. It's how conspiracy theorists can demand that scientists prove negatives (prove that vaccines don't cause autism, prove that the moon landing wasn't fake), while offering no proof for their own claims and dismissing any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.

Example: "She was trapped under an arbitrary burden of proof. Every time she provided a source, he moved the sourcepost. Every time she met his standard, he raised it. After two hours, she'd provided twenty sources, and he'd provided zero. When she asked what he believed, he said 'I'm just asking questions.' The questions were infinite, the answers were never enough, and the burden was hers alone."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Arbitrary Analogy Fallacy

A fallacy where one dismisses an argument, claim, or position by comparing it arbitrarily to something universally derided—Flat Earth theory, anti-vaxxers, tinfoil hats, or other culturally recognized symbols of irrationality—without establishing a substantive logical connection. The fallacy lies in the arbitrariness of the comparison: rather than engaging with the actual argument, the speaker simply invokes a stigmatized label, relying on cultural disgust to do the work of refutation. "That's just like Flat Earthers." "You sound like an anti-vaxxer." "Next you'll be wearing a tinfoil hat." The comparison is arbitrary because the logical relationship between the target argument and the stigmatized position is never demonstrated—they're just associated through rhetorical gesture. This fallacy is particularly powerful because it bypasses reasoning entirely, triggering emotional rejection rather than intellectual engagement. It's the lazy debater's way of dismissing without thinking.

Example: "He raised legitimate questions about media consolidation, and she responded with 'oh, so you're a conspiracy theorist now?'—Arbitrary Analogy Fallacy, using the stigma of conspiracy to avoid engaging with actual concerns."

by Dumu The Void March 17, 2026

Arbitrary Dilemma Fallacy

A fallacy, extremely common in politics, where one artificially restricts the range of available options to a false dilemma—typically presenting a limited set of choices as the only possibilities, when others exist. The most famous form is TINA (There Is No Alternative), where a particular policy or system is presented as inevitable because "there's no other choice." Another common form is lesser-evilism, where one is told to support a flawed option because the alternative is supposedly worse—without considering whether other alternatives exist or whether the framing itself is manipulative. "We have to accept this austerity because there's no alternative." "Vote for this corrupt candidate because the other one is even worse." "Support this imperfect policy because the opposition would be catastrophic." The fallacy lies in the arbitrariness of the dilemma: the options presented are treated as exhaustive when they're not, and the criteria for what counts as "worse" are assumed rather than argued. The dilemma is arbitrary because it's constructed to foreclose rather than enable genuine choice.

Example: "She argued that we had to accept the surveillance bill because 'the terrorists win otherwise'—Arbitrary Dilemma Fallacy, presenting a false choice between surveillance and security while ignoring the possibility of security without surveillance."

by Dumu The Void March 17, 2026

what arbitrary silliness

Bull Fucking Shit Respectively.

what arbitrary silliness

by Duskman June 7, 2010

Going Arbitrary

When faced with a tough decision, Going Arbitrary is asking an otherwise illogical question to make the decision for you. Optimally, the question should be connected to the decision in some way, though this is not necessary.

Person A) "Beef patty or chicken patty... I don't know! I'm going arbitrary. Exploration or flying houses?"

Person B) "Flying houses"

Person A) "Chicken patties it is!"

by Beast_modez June 18, 2009