For the first time in three years, American workers' paychecks are lagging behind inflation

CasualLurker said:
If Trump dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran, it might bother the PRC. They have a much more likely chance of getting a missile through to Houston.
Click to expand...
Zero.

Iran has no long range missiles.
Iran has no nuclear bombs.
Iran has no infrastructure left to build them.
Their little gunboats can't carry enough fuel to get to Houston.
 
None of Into the Night’s fallacy labels are legitimately recognized as standard logical fallacies.

Here’s a clear breakdown based on his actual recent and historical usage (pulled directly from the recent-content page and his broader posting record across Just Plain Politics:

The Core Labels He Uses
  • Argument from randU fallacy (his most frequent by far)
    Exact usage examples: “Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not data, Dope.” / “Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers and using them as ‘data’.”
    This is 100% his own invention. He even defines it in his own posts as “using random numbers of type randU as if they were ‘data’.” It appears only in threads where he is posting — never in logic textbooks, philosophy resources, Wikipedia’s list of fallacies, fallacyfiles.org, or any academic source. It is not a recognized term in critical thinking or formal logic. He deploys it as a blanket dismissal of any statistical, polling, or numerical claim he dislikes.
  • Inversion fallacy
    Exact usage: Simply “Inversion fallacy.” (often dropped as a standalone jab).
    This one has extremely limited, non-standard appearances elsewhere:
    • A handful of niche blog posts or GMAT test-prep articles use “inversion” descriptively for reversing conditionals or confusing correlation with causation.
    • One 2022 culture-war blog coined “The Inversion Fallacy” in a very specific Bret Weinstein/Dark Horse context.
    • An old physics paper discusses “lateral inversion fallacy” in optics.
      None of these match how he uses it, and none are part of the canonical list of logical fallacies taught in philosophy, debate, or critical-thinking courses. It is not “the Inversion Fallacy” in any established taxonomy.
Other Labels He Repeatedly Uses

He also deploys (in the same style):
  • Void argument fallacy
  • Assumption of victory fallacy
  • Reversal fallacy
  • Redefinition fallacy
  • Denial of logic (sometimes treated as a fallacy label)
These follow the exact same pattern: they sound technical and impressive, but none appear in any recognized list of logical fallacies. They are custom rhetorical weapons he has built for his forum persona.

Why This Matters (Quick Critique)
  • They are not “legitimate” in any sense that matters: A legitimately recognized fallacy is one that appears in standard references (Aristotle’s original list, Copi’s Introduction to Logic, Kahneman/Tversky work, or modern compilations like The Fallacy Files). None of his do.
  • They function as style, not substance. Labeling something “Argument from randU fallacy” lets him sound like he’s applying formal logic while actually just saying “I reject your numbers.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of shouting “Objection!” without stating the grounds.
  • Other forum users have noticed: one thread literally defines “The Fallacy Fallacy” as “when a poster, almost always Into the Night, claims a fallacy without explaining why the fallacy occurred.”
Verdict: Zero of his fallacy labels are legitimately recognized. They are a personal collection of made-up or heavily twisted terms that exist only within his own posting history and a tiny circle of forums where he’s active. It’s a signature gimmick — it has no grounding in actual logic or critical-thinking scholarship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top