What I mean by posting ‘moves’: in this thread, I suggested that the posting ‘move’ of “making an assertion, and upon being challenged on this assertion, immediately backing off with no defense and making a totally different assertion, which is often just as ridiculous as the first” be called the “Full adaher”. This can be extended into a series, ala the “double full adaher”, “triple full adaher”, and so forth.
What other posting ‘moves’, in the spirit of good-natured (or not so good-natured) mockery, deserve their own names?
The Watchwolf … the act of insulting the grammar of the statement without arguing the content. It only works if the poster’s own grammar is really really bad to begin with.
I’m going to decline the OP’s implicit invitation to name weasel-moves after specific posters.
“The Myopic” happens when the debater deliberately misstates the opposing argument.
“The Macular Degenerate” move occurs when the debater seemingly cannot even see the central point being made by the opposition, but is hell on wheels in debating and refuting the fringe and periphery arguments in play.
And the “Amnesiac” is the move in which a given point is refined, defined, cited, and shown conclusively to be false, and the opposing debater stops responding – only to pop up a couple weeks later with his original argument and seemingly no recollection of the devastating defeat it received earlier.
A Romero is when someone comes along years later to re-raise an argument long settled in the zombie thread. Usually because they Googled the topic, hit a particularly inflammatory post and decided the universe would remain off-balance if they didn’t dump their life-work research file into the continuum.
The “I’m so stupid I didn’t even realize the cite I gave actually refutes my argument” move. I’d name it, but the 2 posters I can think of have been banned, so that’s probably not a good idea.
“The Concrete Brain” – in which the use of an analogy is taken way too literally, and attacked for not being perfect.
Yes, we all know every analogy isn’t perfect. If there is a perfect analogy for discussing a complex topic, it is the discussion of the complex topic itself!
To Vinny: to offer a pun so wretched, putrid and horrifyingly banal as to render the respondent helpless and disarmed, as the brain is seized with spasms of nausea and revulsion.
The “I Didn’t Say Nothin” Defense, where every challenge is parried by denying that the poster said what is being challenged.
A: I think left-handed people should be lined up against a wall and shot.
B: That seems harsh. Why do you want to kill left-handed people?
A: I never said they should be killed. Read for comprehension, you retarded asshole. I said they should be shot. Do you really not understand the difference between being shot and being killed?
B: So the goal is what, to inflict pain? That seems pretty sadistic.
A: When did I say anything about inflicting pain? Did you flunk first grade? Here, I’ll say it in real short words–they should be shot. I don’t care if they’re anesthetized first. Pain has nothing to do with it.
B: So, why DO you want to shoot left-handed people?
A: God, you’re a lying sack of shit. When did I ever say I wanted to shoot them? I don’t even own a gun. I said they SHOULD BE SHOT. Jesus H. Christ, it’s hard arguing with illiterates.
1: The Appeal to Invisible Authority “I have dozens of e-mails and/or PMs from people on my side who like, totally support me on this issue but are uncomfortable posting their support. No you can’t see them.”
2: The Stupid Socratic Question.: Statement: The sky is blue. Response: Is the sky REALLY blue? What do you mean by blue? Do other people think it’s blue?
3: The Idiotic Cite request: Statement: People died in WWII. Response: You don’t know that for sure. Cite???
4: The Dio, Type A: Blanket denial. Statement: The sky is blue. Dio-type-A: No it’s not.
5: The Dio, Type B: Denial of what you just wrote: Statment by Dio: The sky is blue right now. Response: But…it’s nightime and raining. The sky’s kind of greyish black, not blue. Dio-Type-B “I never said it was blue”
How did I forget the Magiver: it doesn’t matter what “facts” or “real experts in the field” say, I know better than all of them.
See, for example, his plan to air-drop motorcycles and an A-Team custom van into Benghazi within an hour of the shooting starting, despite the unanimous conclusions of military commanders and the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that it was simply impossible.
Also see, moving two patients with Ebola to the US for treatment causing a risk of an outbreak, even though a plethora of doctors say there is no threat, and the fact that Ebola viruses have been present in the United States for decades.
I think the more appropriate example is a request for a cite in relation to an opinion or conclusion.
A: “I think the 49ers really have a shot at making it to the Super Bowl this year. And I really think Cool Ranch Doritos are superior to the Nacho Cheese variety.”
B: “WTF??? CITE!!!”
