A portmanteau of Argumentum
Ad Argumentum and Bulverism, this rhetorical fallacy combines circular reasoning, the genetic fallacy, and argument-labeling with presumption and condescension. The Argumenterist presumes that a speaker'
s argument is false or invalid without engaging its content, then explains why the argument is being made by attacking its perceived category, motives, or origins—even if the argument might actually be correct.
Classic moves: "This is just relativism," "That's
postmodernism," "This is pseudoscience," "This is bullshit," "That's an ad hominem fallacy" (while committing one), "This is hasty generalization" (without showing the haste). The fallacy is circular because the presumption of falsity justifies the dismissal, and the dismissal confirms the presumption. It's genetic because it traces the argument to supposedly disreputable origins (relativism,
postmodernism, etc.). And it's condescending because the Argumenterist speaks from above, diagnosing the argument's pathologies rather than engaging its substance. Argumenterism is the
intellectual's version of sticking fingers in ears—it sounds sophisticated because you're using philosophical vocabulary, but you're still not listening.
"I presented a nuanced critique of institutional power drawing on multiple traditions. Argumenterist response: 'This is just postmodern relativism dressed up as scholarship. You're making these arguments because you've absorbed
French theory without understanding its contradictions.' They didn't address a
single point—just labeled the argument, diagnosed its origins, and dismissed it from on high. That's Argumenterism: the smug assurance that naming
something is the same as refuting it."
