Hoc Est Radicalismus Fallacy

A fallacy where someone dismisses arguments by labeling them "radical," "extremist," or "fringe." The label functions as social dismissal: if it's radical, it's outside acceptable discourse and doesn't need engagement. The fallacy lies in treating marginality as falsity, ignoring that many truths were once radical and that social position doesn't determine correctness. It's argument from respectability—confusing what's acceptable with what's true.

"I proposed significant structural changes to address inequality. Response: 'That's just radical extremism.' That's Hoc Est Radicalismus Fallacy—using the label as a dismissal, not engaging the proposal. Maybe it's radical; maybe it's what's needed. The label doesn't tell you; thinking does. But labeling avoids thinking."

by Dumu The Void March 2, 2026

De Te Agitur Fallacy

A specific form of Argumentum Ad Te where the responder claims that the argument being made is actually about the person making it—that the critique, analysis, or description applies reflexively to the speaker. "It's about you" becomes a way of deflecting criticism by turning it back on the critic. Unlike standard ad hominem (which attacks the person directly), De Te Agitur claims that the content of the argument itself describes the arguer. It's a rhetorical judo move: using the opponent's own words as a mirror, claiming they've inadvertently described themselves. The fallacy lies in assuming that describing a phenomenon means embodying it, that analysis equals confession.

"I critiqued authoritarian tendencies in modern politics. Response: 'You're just describing yourself—it's about you.' That's De Te Agitur Fallacy—using my critique as a mirror instead of engaging it. Maybe I'm describing something real; maybe not. But claiming it's 'about me' avoids addressing whether it's about anything else. It's deflection dressed as insight."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Impossible Conclusion Fallacy

The opposite of jumping to conclusions—accusing someone of "jumping to conclusions" or "hasty generalization" while demanding impossible standards of proof, pushing the needed conclusion into the realm of deductive certainty where none is possible. The fallacy lies in requiring conclusions to meet standards that no real-world conclusion can meet, then dismissing any conclusion that falls short. It's skepticism weaponized as impossibility: demanding mathematical proof for historical claims, controlled experiments for social phenomena, or absolute certainty for probabilistic judgments. The impossible standard ensures no conclusion can ever be reached, which is exactly the point.

"The evidence strongly suggests the policy failed. Response: 'You're jumping to conclusions—you haven't proven it with absolute certainty.' That's Impossible Conclusion Fallacy—demanding certainty where only probability exists. The standard is impossible, so the conclusion is always 'premature.' It's not about rigor; it's about never having to agree."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Logical Excuse Fallacy

A fallacy where you accuse your opponent of committing logical fallacies specifically to avoid dealing with the content of their arguments. The move uses "that's a fallacy" as a conversation-ender, not a genuine critique. Instead of showing why something is fallacious and what that means, the accuser simply labels and dismisses. The fallacy lies in treating fallacy identification as refutation—as if naming the error does the work of argument. Real fallacy analysis requires showing why the fallacy matters, how it affects the argument, and what remains after it's removed. Logical Excuse Fallacy skips all that and just declares victory.

Logical Excuse Fallacy "He spent the whole debate saying 'that's a straw man,' 'that's ad hominem,' 'that's hasty generalization'—never once engaging what I actually said. That's Logical Excuse Fallacy—using fallacy names as excuses to avoid argument. Real critique engages; labeling just dismisses. The fallacies may have been real; the excuse was the point."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Logical Neutrality Fallacy

The denial that, in practical contexts, logic is not neutral—that power struggles and vested interests operate through logic, and that logic is a space of power just like science and academia. The fallacy lies in insisting that logic floats free of human interests, that logical standards are universal and impartial, when in fact what counts as logical, whose logic counts, and how logic is applied all reflect power relations. Logical Neutrality Fallacy is what happens when privilege becomes invisible—those with logical privilege assume their logic is just logic, not one logic among many backed by institutional power.

"Logic is neutral—it doesn't care who's using it!" That's Logical Neutrality Fallacy—denying that power shapes what counts as logical. But whose logic? Applied by whom? Enforced in what contexts? Western classical logic has power; indigenous logics don't. Logic isn't neutral when one logic gets to define what logic is. Neutrality is a myth; power is real."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

But You Said So Fallacy

A variation of the strawman fallacy where the strawman is constructed based on terms the person used to describe themselves or their position. "But you said you were X, so you must believe Y" becomes a way of distorting positions by taking self-descriptions out of context or pushing them to extremes. The fallacy lies in using someone's own words against them in ways that misrepresent their actual position—turning self-description into caricature, identity into ideology.

"I said I'm patriotic. Response: 'So you support everything the government does? But You Said So Fallacy—taking my self-description and pushing it to absurd extremes. Patriotic doesn't mean unquestioning; it means loving my country, which includes critiquing it. Using my words against me in ways I never intended is strawman by quotation."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy

An inverted strawman where the person denies the applicability of a term by claiming ignorance of its meaning. The classic form: someone accused of racism says "you can't call me racist because I don't even know what racism means." The move uses claimed ignorance as a shield—if I don't know the term, the term can't apply to me. The fallacy lies in treating ignorance as innocence, not knowing as not being. But actions have meanings regardless of the actor's vocabulary. Not knowing what racism means doesn't mean your actions aren't racist; it just means you're ignorant, not innocent.

But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy "I pointed out his pattern of discriminatory comments. Response: 'I don't even know what racism means, so you can't call me racist!' That's But I Don't Know What This Term Means Fallacy—using ignorance as a defense. Not knowing the word doesn't mean the behavior isn't real. Ignorance isn't innocence; it's just ignorance."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026