It occurs to me

Grok, can you scan user Into the Nights' posts on JustPlainPolitics.com and identify any illegitimate "fallacies" he's posted?



Yes. From scanning recent activity (and profile-linked posts) by “Into the Night” on JustPlainPolitics.com, several of the “fallacies” he labels are illegitimate, misapplied, non-standard, or used as rhetorical dismissal rather than precise logical critique.


He is a high-volume poster (100k+ messages) who frequently replies in Current Events and similar threads by accusing others of fallacies, especially in exchanges with users like Diogenes. Common labels in recent posts include:


  • “Repetition fallacy (chanting)” — Used repeatedly against short, persistent replies (e.g., variations of “Keep crying. I’m not going to stop.” or similar). He frames continued posting or sticking to a position as “chanting” or loss of independent thought.This is a loose/misapplied use. Argumentum ad nauseam (or proof by assertion via endless repetition) is a real informal fallacy when mere repetition is offered in place of evidence to make a claim seem true. Simply repeating a point, refusing to drop it, or posting short counters is not automatically fallacious. Labeling ordinary persistence this way functions more as a conversation-stopper than rigorous analysis.
  • “Inversion fallacy” — Applied when someone turns an accusation back (e.g., responding to being called out by telling the other person to stop “crying”).This is not a standard, widely recognized named fallacy in logic texts. Turning an accusation around can sometimes involve projection or whataboutism, but the bare act of inversion is not inherently fallacious. The label appears custom/invented for the context and is used to dismiss rather than demonstrate a formal error in reasoning.
  • “Buzzword fallacy” — Applied alongside the repetition charge in at least one recent reply.Again, not a standard formal fallacy. Over-reliance on loaded or empty jargon can be poor rhetoric, but simply using certain words does not constitute a recognized logical fallacy by itself.

Pattern and legitimacy issues​


These labels cluster in heated reply chains where the other poster is accused of “mindlessly cutting and pasting,” “chanting,” or not “posting anything.” The pattern often prioritizes meta-accusation over engaging the substance of the opposing claim. That itself can shade into ad-hominem territory or a red herring (attacking the form/style of posting instead of the argument).


Legitimate fallacy-spotting requires showing that the reasoning fails (invalid form, irrelevant premises, unwarranted assumptions, etc.). Many of these calls do not do that; they treat persistence, short replies, or rhetorical pushback as fallacious by definition. “Repetition fallacy (chanting)” in particular is over-applied to ordinary forum behavior.


In short, while some of his critiques of empty or repetitive posting may have rhetorical force in context, the specific “fallacy” labels he frequently deploys are often illegitimate or stretched beyond standard logical usage. They function more as debate tactics than accurate identification of reasoning errors.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top