Generally, it occurs when somebody starts a thread, drops a key word or two, and assumes everybody knows what they’re talking about. They imply some sort of disapproval, but nobody who reads the thread has been given enough reference or context to frame a discussion.
Like this one from the Pit. The OP titles it “Koskinen” and posts “It’s obvious. I’m probably the 10th person to start a thread like this.” And that’s it.
The OP used what he thought was an Axiom, which is considered a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. But his axiom could be false, and the closest I could find to that condition was ZF¬C, which stands for “Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory plus the negation of the axiom of choice.” Much too complex.
Appeal to Consequences also fits, but again, much too complex. The OP didn’t even frame an argument to begin with.
Dopers frequently use terms like “ad hominem,” “straw man,” or my favorite, “Reductio ad Hitlerum.” But there’s no high-falutin’ term to use as a rejoinder for these types of threads other than “whut” and the confused smiley. There has to be a single term we can use for “We don’t know what you’re talking about, moron. Give us some cites or something.”