Absolutist Fallacy

The belief that one possesses absolute, objective truth and that everyone who disagrees is simply wrong—not differently situated, not operating from different premises, not seeing a different aspect of reality, but simply, absolutely wrong. The Absolutist Fallacy is objectivity bias taken to its logical extreme: not just believing you're right, but believing that rightness is a property you possess and others lack. It's the fallacy of the true believer, the ideologue, the person who has never encountered a perspective that challenged their own and survived the encounter intact. Absolutist Fallacy makes dialogue impossible because there's nothing to discuss—you have the truth; they have error. The only question is how to correct them.

Example: "He didn't argue; he declared. Every conversation was a lecture, every disagreement a sign of the other person's confusion. Absolutist Fallacy meant he possessed truth; everyone else was just wrong. When she tried to offer a different perspective, he didn't engage—he corrected. There was nothing to discuss because discussion implies uncertainty, and he had none."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Invisible Convincing

The fallacy of assuming that it's possible to convince or argue with anyone about anything—even the most absurd, unacceptable, or monstrous positions—through sufficient rationality, evidence, and persuasion. The fallacy ignores that some positions are not reached through reason and cannot be dislodged by it. You cannot argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. The defender of slavery, the apologist for genocide, the advocate of racist policies—these are not positions that yield to evidence because they were not based on evidence. The Fallacy of Invisible Convincing is beloved of those who believe that all disagreement is misunderstanding, that all conflict can be resolved through dialogue, that the only problem is insufficient communication. It's a noble fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Example: "He spent years trying to convince his racist uncle that racism was wrong—studies, arguments, personal stories, everything. Nothing worked. The Fallacy of Invisible Convincing had promised that reason would prevail; reason didn't. Some positions are not reachable by argument because they were not reached by argument. He finally understood: you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Impossible Convincing

The fallacy of assuming that it's possible to convince or argue with anyone about anything—even the most absurd, unacceptable, or monstrous positions—through sufficient rationality, evidence, and persuasion. The fallacy ignores that some positions are not reached through reason and cannot be dislodged by it. You cannot argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. The defender of slavery, the apologist for genocide, the advocate of racist policies—these are not positions that yield to evidence because they were not based on evidence. The Fallacy of Impossible Convincing is beloved of those who believe that all disagreement is misunderstanding, that all conflict can be resolved through dialogue, that the only problem is insufficient communication. It's a noble fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Example: "He spent years trying to convince his racist uncle that racism was wrong—studies, arguments, personal stories, everything. Nothing worked. The Fallacy of Impossible Convincing had promised that reason would prevail; reason didn't. Some positions are not reachable by argument because they were not reached by argument. He finally understood: you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Hyperrationalization

The practice of applying rational argumentation to literally everything—including topics that are fundamentally beyond the reach of reason, or that should be beyond the pale of acceptable debate. Hyperrationalization treats all questions as equally debatable, all positions as equally worthy of engagement, all claims as requiring the same rational scrutiny. It's the fallacy that leads people to "debate" whether genocide is wrong, whether slavery should be reinstated, whether racism has merits—as if these were open questions rather than settled horrors. Hyperrationalization mistakes the form of reason for its substance, treating the act of arguing as inherently virtuous regardless of what's being argued. It's reason as performance, rationality as spectacle.

Example: "The panel was titled 'Debating the Merits of Slavery: A Rational Approach.' The Fallacy of Hyperrationalization had turned atrocity into abstraction, evil into exercise. There was nothing to debate; there was only horror. But hyperrationalization demanded that all questions be open, all positions be considered, all arguments be heard—even those that should never be spoken."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Hyperrealism

The belief that only the most brutal, cynical, or pessimistic assessment of any situation constitutes "realism," and that any hope, optimism, or idealism is naive delusion. Hyperrealism mistakes despair for depth, cruelty for clarity. It's the fallacy of those who pride themselves on "seeing things as they really are" while seeing only the worst. The hyperrealist dismisses every possibility of improvement as fantasy, every attempt at change as doomed, every vision of a better world as childish. Their "realism" is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy: believe nothing can change, and you'll ensure it doesn't. Hyperrealism is the favorite fallacy of the cynical, the burned-out, the ones who have given up and want company.

Example: "He called himself a realist. She called it the Fallacy of Hyperrealism. Every proposal for change met with 'that'll never work.' Every hope was 'naive.' Every possibility was 'impossible.' His realism wasn't insight; it was surrender—dressed up as wisdom, but really just giving up. The world wouldn't change because people like him had decided it couldn't."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Hyperrationalism

The belief that rationality alone is sufficient for navigating all of human life—that emotions, values, relationships, and experiences can all be reduced to logical terms and evaluated by rational standards. Hyperrationalism mistakes the map for the territory, the tool for the task. It's the fallacy of those who try to logic their way through love, to reason their way through grief, to argue their way through values. Hyperrationalism produces technically correct answers to the wrong questions, logically valid arguments about things that can't be argued. It's reason as a hammer, and everything looking like a nail—until you try to hammer love and find it's not a nail.

Example: "He tried to logic her into staying: 'If you loved me, you'd want me to be happy. If you want me to be happy, you'd stay. Therefore, if you loved me, you'd stay.' She left anyway. The Fallacy of Hyperrationalism had failed: love doesn't follow logic, and logic doesn't capture love. He had the right form and the wrong substance—a perfect argument about nothing that mattered."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Fallacy of Relative Superiority

The belief that one's position, system, or ideology is superior because it's better than the alternatives—without ever establishing that it's actually good. "Our democracy is flawed, but it's better than dictatorship." The fallacy accepts a low bar: as long as you're not the worst, you're good enough. Relative superiority is the logic of the lesser evil, of "it could be worse," of every defense that never actually defends but only compares. It ignores that better than terrible is not the same as good, and that the existence of worse alternatives doesn't make a bad alternative acceptable. The fallacy is beloved of those who benefit from the status quo, who can always point to something worse instead of defending what they have.

Example: "She criticized the healthcare system's failures—people dying for lack of insurance, bankrupted by illness, denied care. He responded with the Fallacy of Relative Superiority: 'But in Country X, they have no healthcare at all.' The comparison was true and irrelevant. Her points stood unanswered; his defense was just deflection. Relative superiority had done its work: changing the subject from failure to comparison."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026