YouTube Ad-Blockers 

This is the most useful extension for watching a YouTube video seamlessly without getting interrupted by Google's petty ads (Why does big companies ruin everything single innocent thing anyway?)

Basically, it just blocks every single ad that tries to bother you and keep you away from watching your video. This includes ads that are inappropriate and not safe for children. It seems so necessarily, and the good thing is, most of them are free! Yay! No ads! Literally a haven for us, right?

Not for long. YouTube used to be the best and only video site I relied on for years, but now it's a goddang mess in this 2020s decade. It's a pile of kaka that smells like greed. You know why?

IN AROUND 2023, THEY LITERALLY JUST BUILT A SYSTEM THAT ABSOLUTELY ERADICATES EVERY SINGLE AD-BLOCKER, DISPLAY A BLACK SCREEN SO THAT THE BEAUTIFUL VIDEO YOU'RE WATCHING CAN'T PLAY, AND SHOWS YOU THE TEXT:
‘Ad-blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service’

Like dude, who the hell would read ToSes? I mean, good for you if you had the time and balls to read them, but this is inhumane to sane people. There are millions of people using YouTube, and the majority can't waste their time having to buy premium for just the sake of ‘removing ads’. There are thousands of poor people, you know?

A literal dumb move that Google pulled-off out of their scummy arses. YouTube was good before, and now they're making it dystopic and unpleasant and immoral, and… yeah.

I hope the world will be better soon :`)

Person from 2022: Oh god, these YouTube Ad-Blockers are saving me a ton of time to not watch these annoying ads that come out of my (f-word)-ing screen! Enabling extensions like this make me feel like I'm in heaven! Betchya YouTube couldn't do anything about it >:D

Person from 2024: Erm, actually, you can't use them anymore, since YouTube (or Google actually) heard about this situation and just straight up built a system that blocks every ad-blocker and notifies you with a black screen telling you that you ‘violated’ their ToS and that YouTube Ads actually ‘benefit’ those you watch and create the wonders of art.

Person from 2022: For realsies? I am gonna experience this in 2 years?

Person from 2024: Yeah, sorry, bro. The world got way worse after COVID, at least in terms of technology, but even then we still have global warming. This planet sucks, and it's our fault.

Person from 2022: True, and to you, Google, insults Google in the most unfriendly manner. I WILL BLOCK YOUR HEART ARTIERIES, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT, GOOGLE??? (F-WORD) YOU CAPITALISM, AND GREEDY BIG COMPANIES! Drops f-bomb and shows their middle finger

Person from 2024: Uh… you consider that if Google hears about this, and about free speech, um…

Person from 2022: Friendly goodbye, then goes outside and touches grass

YouTube Ad-Blockers by Wallflower_Blushed_68 October 19, 2024

Argumentum ad twoja stara 

"Argument" używany kiedy osobnikowi zabraknie jakiś logicznych lub sensownych argumentów, który głównie zahacza o członka twojej rodziny.

Osobnik 1 - "Uważam, że Dark Souls II jest zajebistą grą!"
Osobnik 2 - "A ja uważam że zajebiście to twoja stara ciągnie mi lachę"
Osobnik 1 - "Argumentum ad twoja stara"

Argumentum ad twoja stara by Jakiś Typ March 6, 2025

Argumentum Ad Argumentum

A meta-fallacy where the speaker attacks the argument itself—its category, origin, or perceived affiliation—rather than engaging with its actual content. Unlike ad hominem (which attacks the person), Argumentum Ad Argumentum attacks the type of argument being made, dismissing it by labeling rather than addressing it. Classic examples: "This is just relativism," "That's postmodernism," "This is pseudoscience," "That's charlatanism," "This is delusional thinking." The fallacy lies in treating the label as a refutation—as if saying "that's pseudoscience" proves the argument wrong, rather than requiring demonstration of why it's pseudoscientific. The label becomes a weapon, the category a cudgel. Argumentum Ad Argumentum is particularly seductive because it sounds sophisticated—you're not attacking the person, you're attacking the argument's pedigree. But you're still not engaging the content. You're naming and shaming instead of thinking and responding.

"I spent hours constructing a careful critique of institutional power, drawing on multiple traditions. Response: 'This is just postmodern nonsense.' That's Argumentum Ad Argumentum—they didn't address a single point, just slapped a label on the whole thing and walked away. Postmodernism becomes a magic word that makes arguments disappear. But magic isn't logic."

Argumentum Ad Argumentum by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

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."

Argumentum Ad Actione 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."

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem 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."

Argumentum Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Argumentum Ad Structura

A fallacy where someone focuses on the structure or form of an argument rather than its actual content, treating structural features as if they determined truth or falsehood. "This argument is poorly structured" becomes a way of dismissing claims without engaging them. The fallacy lies in assuming that structure determines validity in a content-independent way—that a badly structured argument must be wrong, or a well-structured one right. But structure is about form, not truth; a perfectly structured argument can be completely false, and a clumsily structured one can be essentially correct. Argumentum Ad Structura mistakes the package for the gift.

"I made a passionate, meandering case for climate action. Response: 'Your argument lacks proper structure—therefore it's invalid.' That's Argumentum Ad Structura—judging by form, not content. My points were solid even if my delivery was messy. Structure matters, but it's not the message. Focusing on structure while ignoring content is like reviewing a book by its font."

Argumentum Ad Structura by Abzugal February 28, 2026