A surprisingly high % of stupid arguments & fights on Twitter are rooted in a tiny number of fairly obvious fallacies.

Stupid arguments & the fallacies that feed them, a thread:

Fallacy 1/

Just because it’s true that all squares are rectangles, you argued that all rectangles must be squares. (And you did it with so much swagger.)
Example of Fallacy 1

X says: Successful people aren’t afraid of hard work.

Y argues: That’s BS. I work 90 hours a week at Tech Co and am still stuck in this dead-end job.
Fallacy 2/

Just because you found an exception to a general pattern, you argued that the entire pattern is false.
Example of Fallacy 2

X says: Venture capital is useful for startups.

Y argues: Not true. Foo’s startup took VC money and they crashed & burned.

Z piles on: I agree with Y. In fact, Bar’s startup did not take VC money and it’s worth a bajillion.
Fallacy 2′/

Just because you found an exception to a general pattern, you argued that the exception *is* the pattern.
(further examples are left as an exercise for the reader)
Fallacy 3/

Just because you did not agree with one small aspect of what someone said, you argued that it makes sense to ignore everything they said.
Fallacy 4/

Just because you found one thing missing in a list of generally useful things, you argued that the entire list is useless.
Fallacy 5/

Just because a thing worked for you, you argued that everyone should do that thing, all the time.
Fallacy 5′/

Just because a thing worked for Musk / Bezos / Jobs / [insert your idol], you argued that everyone should do that thing, all the time.
Fallacy 6/

Just because a thing worked for you, you argued that no one should do the opposite of that thing, ever, under any circumstance.
Fallacy 6′/

Just because a thing worked for Musk / Bezos / Jobs / [insert your idol], you argued that no one should do the opposite of that thing, ever, under any circumstance.
Fallacy 7/

Just because a good idea wouldn’t work if “everyone did it”, you argued that it is in fact a terrible idea and *no one* should do it.
While this thread won't solve any of the bad faith conversations that unfortunately happen on Twitter, I hope it can help prevent some of the good faith conversations from taking a stupid turn.
Did I miss any other fallacies?

More from Shreyas Doshi

You May Also Like

॥ॐ॥
अस्य श्री गायत्री ध्यान श्लोक:
(gAyatri dhyAna shlOka)
• This shloka to meditate personified form of वेदमाता गायत्री was given by Bhagwaan Brahma to Sage yAgnavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य).

• 14th shloka of गायत्री कवचम् which is taken from वशिष्ठ संहिता, goes as follows..


• मुक्ता-विद्रुम-हेम-नील धवलच्छायैर्मुखस्त्रीक्षणै:।
muktA vidruma hEma nIla dhavalachhAyaiH mukhaistrlkShaNaiH.

• युक्तामिन्दुकला-निबद्धमुकुटां तत्वार्थवर्णात्मिकाम्॥
yuktAmindukalA nibaddha makutAm tatvArtha varNAtmikam.

• गायत्रीं वरदाभयाङ्कुश कशां शुभ्रं कपालं गदाम्।
gAyatrIm vardAbhayANkusha kashAm shubhram kapAlam gadAm.

• शंखं चक्रमथारविन्दयुगलं हस्तैर्वहन्ती भजै॥
shankham chakramathArvinda yugalam hastairvahantIm bhajE.

This shloka describes the form of वेदमाता गायत्री.

• It says, "She has five faces which shine with the colours of a Pearl 'मुक्ता', Coral 'विद्रुम', Gold 'हेम्', Sapphire 'नील्', & a Diamond 'धवलम्'.

• These five faces are symbolic of the five primordial elements called पञ्चमहाभूत:' which makes up the entire existence.

• These are the elements of SPACE, FIRE, WIND, EARTH & WATER.

• All these five faces shine with three eyes 'त्रिक्षणै:'.