Dozens of conservative organizations have banded together to provide Trump a road map—known as Project 2025—to boost fossil fuels and limit government climate science
I’m not sure if this counts as a new type of logical fallacy, or if it’s just a general tactic. I call it ‘micro specificity’ where someone takes a commnet and uses specific facts to undermine the actual idea.
For instance, I wrote that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House circa 1976, and Ronald Reagan removed them when he got elected. I got a long reply that ignored everything about Carter’s attempts to rein in Big Oil and instead gave a lot of details about 1970s solar tech.
It’s a variation of gish gallop. If you negate their point they’ll just ignore you and hope nobody else engages with the correction. It’s less spectacular and more secure from an infosec POV because with prime gish gallop the operator has to keep somewhere between many and dozens of premises oriented around the argument they’re trying to push.
I’m not sure if this counts as a new type of logical fallacy, or if it’s just a general tactic. I call it ‘micro specificity’ where someone takes a commnet and uses specific facts to undermine the actual idea.
For instance, I wrote that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House circa 1976, and Ronald Reagan removed them when he got elected. I got a long reply that ignored everything about Carter’s attempts to rein in Big Oil and instead gave a lot of details about 1970s solar tech.
The card says “Moops”
Maybe this can help explain it https://youtu.be/FK4RHzNHZXY?si=f8lGXy11J7ID6Sll
Thanks
It’s a variation of gish gallop. If you negate their point they’ll just ignore you and hope nobody else engages with the correction. It’s less spectacular and more secure from an infosec POV because with prime gish gallop the operator has to keep somewhere between many and dozens of premises oriented around the argument they’re trying to push.