# Is there a name for the logical fallacy where you obsess over pedantic details to invalidate the opinions of others **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 2, 2024, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654 "2024-09-02T23:29:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2024, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/1 "2024-09-02T23:29:29Z")
I’ve seen this happen in some arguments. But two that stand out are politics and firearms. People who are very pro firearm sometimes obsess over pedantic details, then think their obsession with pedantic details means only their opinions are valid and nobody elses opinions are valid. For example you may call an AR-15 an assault rifle and they’ll get upset and say ‘only fully-automatic 5.56 are assault rifles. Semi automatic 5.56 rifles are not assault rifles’ even though for real world purposes, 99% of the time when people refer to assault rifles and assault rifle bans we all know they mean semi automatic 5.56 or 7.62 rifles, not fully automatics. Or with politics. Some people get haughty and say ‘America is a republic, not a democracy’ as if that invalidates every belief and opinion of anyone else. Is there a name for this logical fallacy, where you have obsessions with pedantic details and claim anyone who doesn’t pass all your pedantic purity tests isn’t allowed to have opinions you disagree with, or their opinions are inherently invalid due to failing the pedantic purity tests? ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2024, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/2 "2024-09-02T23:36:58Z")
I think another discussion that falls under this umbrella is so-called Sovereign Citizens. These clowns will show up in court and argue the most punctilious of details to try to claim that the court is illegitimate, including because there should (or maybe should not be) fringe on the American flag hung in the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2024, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/3 "2024-09-02T23:38:14Z")
I think the name would be close to “Obsessive” There are many ugly names you can call people like this. But mostly I would refrain from talking with them. Being uninterested usually shuts them down. They need an audience. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2024, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/4 "2024-09-02T23:57:50Z")
“Logic chopping”? > **[Logic Chopping](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?%2Flogicalfallacies%2FLogic-Chopping)** > > Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute. Irrelevant over precision. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/5 "2024-09-03T00:38:10Z")
A related term is red herring. > **[Red herring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)** > > A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently. > The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling s... A red herring is a point that distracts from the main argument rather than actually refuting it. They are often made unconsciously, because some points are more difficult to ignore than others. The OP refers to pedantic red herrings. Wiki also has an article on trivial objections, which typically form in a barrage: > **[Trivial objections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections)** > > Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet".\[citation needed\] Trivial objections are a special case of red herring. > The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a... Sounds like a good thread game. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/6 "2024-09-03T04:03:16Z")
It is or at least can be a mixture of things some of which are logical fallacies and some of which are rhetorical tactics: - it’s a red herring as others have said – a diversion from the substance - it’s a filibuster – a way of dominating the floor to prevent discussion of substance - it’s a subtle _ad hom_ - “you are ignorant of certain precise but irrelevant details so you are stupid” - it’s a _non sequitur_ - “you are ignorant of certain precise but irrelevant details so your arguments are invalid”. - it’s an argument from authority - “I know certain precise but irrelevant details which means I’m an expert so my arguments are valid” ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/7 "2024-09-03T07:03:13Z")
> **[Nitpicking](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking)** > > Nitpicking is a term, first attested in 1956, that describes the action of giving too much attention to unimportant detail. A person who nitpicks is termed as a nitpicker. > The terminology originates from the common act of manually removing nits (the eggs of lice, generally head lice) from another person's hair. > As nitpicking inherently requires fastidious attention to detail, the term has become appropriated to describe the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in de... ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/8 "2024-09-03T07:51:04Z")
There is a sort of hipster-purist thing where people sort of tie their identity into the notion that they are the only one who truly understands some genre of thing; everyone else is just trying to be like them. Of course you like their _second_ album. You would. I liked them before they were famous. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/9 "2024-09-03T08:50:16Z")
Well at the moment I’m really into this certain obscure form of logical fallacy. You wouldn’t have heard of it though… ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/10 "2024-09-03T09:05:32Z")
Well it isn’t really a _logical_ fallacy (nitpickery) when you think of it properly (dismissal of the opponent’s point of view), it is rather a psychological trick (diversion) that shows what an unfortunate personality you have (ad hominem), but going with it for the sake of the argument (condescending haughtiness) I would start by deconstructing it into its simple constituent parts (running warm for a gish gallop), I hope you can follow so far, it is quite evident really ([proof by intimidation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation)). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/11 "2024-09-03T09:27:30Z")
Of course I prefer to call it by the Latin _fallacia_ , from _fallere_ ‘to deceive’. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/12 "2024-09-03T14:42:24Z")
Isn’t this the standard method of argument on the Dope? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/13 "2024-09-03T14:55:51Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Isn’t this the standard method of argument on the Dope? I’m pretty sure we’re still using subtle insults to accuse other people of violating social mores as the standard insult here. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/14 "2024-09-03T14:56:53Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Well at the moment I’m really into this certain obscure form of logical fallacy. You wouldn’t have heard of it though… The word is arcane, not obscure. Only posers say obscure. ---
**Author:** ![Dandan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@Dandan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dandan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/15 "2024-09-03T15:02:29Z")
Terrific thread! Pengele besserwissers in full cry! Dan ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/16 "2024-09-03T15:13:48Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Sounds like a good thread game. Check [Thread Games!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trivial-objections/1006669/13) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/17 "2024-09-03T15:28:17Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Only posers say obscure. _poseurs_ ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/18 "2024-09-03T18:19:10Z")
It occurs to me that we are talking about varieties of _gatekeeping_, at least in the modern internet definition of that term - aggressively deciding who is or (and more commonly) is not allowed to do a thing or express a view about a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/19 "2024-09-03T18:24:46Z")
I would say it is a combination of Appeal to Authority and the Excluded Middle. Since I know more than you on the topic I am the authority and am therefore correct. And since I am correct, you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2024, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654/20 "2024-09-03T18:30:37Z")
Nitpicking, hair-splitting and logic-chopping (a new favorite term) are all good; there’s often an element of sealioning as well. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Isn’t this the standard method of argument on the Dope? Speaking of Dopeian debate tactics - is there a name for the one used when a poster presents several well-sourced, evidence-based articles in support of a proposition, but opponents seize on one particular cite that makes a questionable claim, in an attempt to dismiss the entire argument? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-the-logical-fallacy-where-you-obsess-over-pedantic-details-to-invalidate-the-opinions-of-others/1006654.md?page=2)