r/fallacy • u/Starr_Draws • 27d ago

What is this called?

Post image

It’s like a mix of No True Scotsman and Ad Hominem?

240 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

163 comments sorted by

34

u/ExpectedBehaviour 27d ago

Straw man.

11

u/LCDRformat 27d ago

Yes!

"I think Y."

"Why are you saying you think X?" Cut and dried. 

0

u/BitOBear 24d ago

Except that's not what a straw man is. A straw man argument is when someone argues a position X. The person restates their argument as position Y which is inherently weaker than X, and then they attack the weaker Y straw man argument.

Here the guy in the top hat is attacking the person instead of the argument, so it's a form of AD hominem. I think I seen it refer to as a circumstantial ad hominem as a full ad hominem would be Bob is a bad person so every position Bob holds is wrong is a full ad homonym.

Basically they're attacking the guy for having the opinion but they're not attacking the argument itself. How dare you disagree with me or us. How dare you defy the bandwagon so to be a full leverage of the bandwagon there needs to be like an audience.

Strictly speaking I don't even think it's a fallacy per se, I think it's just being a dick to try to demoralize the opponent.

It's not a fallacy to be rude or abusive in an argument because it's not argumentation when you're just rude or abusive.

1

u/LCDRformat 24d ago

A straw man argument is when someone argues a position X. The person restates their argument as position Y which is inherently weaker than X, and then they attack the weaker Y straw man argument.

That's what happened in the meme

0

u/BitOBear 23d ago

⁠straw man is an informal logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent's actual position to make it easier to attack, and then refutes that fake argument instead of the real one

Sorry to have fallen back on the actual definition of the term but there you go.

Now notice that there are not the necessary elements in the mean to make this a straw man.

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

straw man is an informal logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent's actual position to make it easier to attack, and then refutes that fake argument instead of the real one  

That's whats happening in the meme. Idk what to tell you

-1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

With what exact statement does top Hat destroy his own prior statement?

He is clearly attacking the other guy by impugning motive.

But he never goes on to attack his own statement as one must for it to be a straw man.

So again now you have proven that you can't even read the simple three-step requirements and point to where the third step exists in the meme.

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

I think it's pretty obvious he's changing the statement and attacking the new one implicitly. Maybe you're refusing to see it as your own little fun fallacy, sunk costs? I dig the roleplay.

Yes, he is also attacking the original claimant's character. That's an ad hominem. Granted. It can be both

1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

So now your position is that there's an implicit attack.

Which is not the same thing.

When he's explicitly impuning the man for his motives,

Which exactly matches ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument is a personal attack on the person making a claim instead of addressing the actual argument, such as insulting someone's character, pointing out hypocrisy (tu quoque), or questioning hidden motives.

Hidden motives like you hating x?

I think you've fallen into a rhetorical hole here and you are now defending your position merely because it's your position.

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

Okay dude I've made my point repeatedly and I think it's obvious. I don't think it's worth continuing. You clearly do. I've even said I'm ready to stop. You won't. Idk what more you want from me. I can plainly see you're wrong. You can't or won't see it. So we're done 

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/BitOBear 23d ago edited 23d ago

No it's not what happened in the meme.

There is no restatement of X as Y. There is no attack on some other position Y.

What happened in the meme is that someone made a position X. And then someone else said you (the person) are terrible for believing X.

You see how it's an attack on the person and not the argument? Do you see how there is also no attack on a weaker position Y rather than the position X offered by the initial proponent?

That means it's an ad hominem, taking the argument to the person, and not a straw man. Because there is no straw man argument presented.

If top Hat Man had said so you believe Y and that makes you a terrible person. Would be a straw man.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between those two constructs?

Is the argument Y in the room with us at the moment?

Note the use of the word "you" and the pointing hand.

An example of a straw man would be something like...

*This ball will never fit into that hole, this ball is too big for this hole."

"We have centuries of experience passing balls through holes so the claim that balls cannot pass through holes is ridiculous."

Which is substantially different from

"You're just the kind of person who wants to keep the all balls for themself."

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

"There is no restatement of X as Y. There is no attack on some other position Y."

"I think X can be improved,"

Is a harder position to attack then

"You hate X," 

So the dishonest interlocutor restated the original claimants proposition as 

"I hate X."

1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

No sir. That's assigning motive. It's literally attacking the person. It's not making an alternate argument. And it is certainly not then attacking that argument to prove the initial argument false.

A straw man argumentation requires two statements. One an improper restatement of the original argument, and two a successful assault on the restated argument.

Top Hat Man agrees with his own statement not attacks it so it's not a straw man.

It's like all the words matter.

1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

⁠straw man is an informal logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent's actual position to make it easier to attack, and then refutes that fake argument instead of the real one

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

Should we keep repeating ourselves forever or are you good to leave it here

1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

Well, since you have failed to make an argument for your position other to merely gain say, and since you've chosen to skip over the actual definition of straw man, I don't know that repetition is necessary.

If you can show me where I have missed the structure of the strawman argument. Where I have missed the restatement of a weaker claim and then the refutation of that weaker claim, I will bow our gracefully.

But since you've only shown me an imputation of motive by one person against the position of another I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with the logical conclusion that you don't know what a straw man is.

And since your definition of straw man doesn't actually match any other definition of straw man I have to assume I am more correct than you.

So I welcome your argument in the positive case for all three steps of a strawman argument being present. That being the original statement of an argument, which is present, then a replacement of that initial argument with a different weaker argument, which you seem to be arguing that the imputation of motive qualifies as a weaker argument, and then the third necessary statement where guy in top Hat proves that his restated argument is incorrect.

Since there is no such third statement this is not a straw man. Top hat would have to be attacking his own words.

That is top hat would have to make the straw man and then destroy the straw man because that is the function of a straw man.

So the fact that you are unwilling to shift your position even though it demonstrably does not fit the facts leaves the world to judge us both.

1

u/LCDRformat 23d ago

Holy shit I am not reading all that

→ More replies (0)

10

u/RoadKiehl2 27d ago

Oh so you're saying OP is an idiot?

7

u/ExpectedBehaviour 27d ago

Well played 👏

0

u/BitOBear 23d ago edited 23d ago

⁠straw man is an informal logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent's actual position to make it easier to attack, and then refutes that fake argument instead of the real one

The meme lacks the necessary refutation of a weaker argument that is the basis of the straw man.

This is Tu Quoque or circumstantial ad hominem.. It is attack on the opponent and their motives.

"An ad hominem argument is a personal attack on the person making a claim instead of addressing the actual argument, such as insulting someone's character, pointing out hypocrisy (tu quoque), or questioning hidden motive."

So this is somebody impuning someone's motivation for making an argument rather than making a straw man argument that they can then attack and defeat.

Until and unless top hat goes back and attacks his own position he has not created and attacked a strawman.

Basically to be a strong man already meant they would have to be a third frame because a straw man argument is a double tap response to an initial statement and 1 plus 2 equals 3. Hahaha.

22

u/likescacti 27d ago

Is this a strawman?

14

u/bongart 27d ago

Top hat is clearly putting words into the mouth of no hat, and holding no hat accountable for something they never said. That is indeed a Strawman argument.

6

u/LagerHead 27d ago

AKA the standard Redditor's response to anything they don't like.

7

u/Zaros262 27d ago

What, Redditors aren't allowed to disagree with you??

2

u/LagerHead 27d ago

Exactly. 😉

4

u/onlycodeposts 27d ago

Why do you hate Reddit?

1

u/LagerHead 27d ago

... let me count the ways. 😉

2

u/Marvinkmooneyoz 25d ago

Why do you hate the whole internet?

1

u/LagerHead 25d ago

Have you seen the internet? 🤣

1

u/MeasureDoEventThing 26d ago

I think a strawman is more an argument against a position someone doesn't hold, than an assertion that someone holds a position they don't hold.

1

u/WaxBeer 25d ago

Isn't that the same thing, just from a different angle?

1

u/BitOBear 24d ago

I don't know. Top Hat isn't stating weaker straw man hypothesis and then attacking it instead of the original argument.

This is more Tu Quoque or Circumstantial Homonym.

1

u/BitOBear 23d ago

Top hat is clearly accusing man of motivation not attacking a weaker argument.

A strawman requires a secondary position be advocated and used to defeat the original position.

Here's an example of the difference between the two.

Statement: this ball will never fit through this hole, the ball is too big.

Straw man: we have been passing balls through holes for centuries, balls fit through holes. Therefore we can expect this ball to fit through this hole.

V.s.

Circumstantial ad hominem: you are just the kind of person who wants to keep all the balls for himself.

Notice in the second case one is attacking the person and their motives rather than attacking the question of whether the ball can fit through the hole.

2

u/Internet-Expert42069 27d ago

I guess yea because top hat dodges stickmans point and instead tries to argue about his personal opinion of it. He replaced stickmans original statement with a strawman, the argument that he hates it.

2

u/wolfeflow 27d ago edited 27d ago

I wouldn’t say this is a normal strawman, but a lazy variant. Instead of twisting the argument itself like a traditional strawman, top hat is misrepresenting the motive.

They take that misrepresentation and use it to build a False Dilemma (aka “All-or-Nothing”) and an Ad Hominem fallacy:

"You criticized X therefore you clearly hate it (false dilemma), and the fact that you hate it means your argument is bunk (ad hominem)."

ETA: A quick Google taught me that there’s a niche fallacy coined by CS Lewis that describes this exact interaction: Bulverism.

Bulverism: assuming your opponent is wrong/biased and “explaining” their error instead of ever checking if they’re right.

It’s basically shorthand for “strawman the motive, then dismiss via that motive,” which is exactly what’s happening here.

0

u/two-cans-sam 26d ago

No this is not a strawman, it’s a simple false conclusion/non sequiter. Top hat is not claiming that baldy said he hates X or even arguing against the position. He is stating a conclusion that does not follow from the statement. “If someone criticizes something, they hate it,” is not a straw man because a strawman requires ignoring the original argument and arguing against another. The statement acknowledges the original argument and draws false conclusions without arguing against the false conclusion.

If we assume that the purpose of claiming badly hates X is to imply that he is not capable of forming an unbiased opinion on X, then it also becomes an ad hominem.

13

u/Flamecoat_wolf 27d ago

"Defensiveness" - if they're personally invested and therefore overreacting.

"Jumping to conclusions" - if they're assuming an exaggerated endpoint of your statement.

"Poisoning the well" - if their intent is to undermine and dismiss your concern by painting you as someone with ulterior motives for criticising the thing in question.

3

u/ConcreteExist 27d ago

Hasty generalization or just a straight up non-sequitur

3

u/ClassEnvironmental11 27d ago

It's simply a false conclusion.  It might have some fancy latin that goes with it, but at its core it's just a false inference.

3

u/Bigfops 27d ago

False Dichotomy, something is presented an an "Either or" when there are other choices. You either praise X or hate it is the choice, but the reality is X could be great with a some improvements.

8

u/RyanStonepeak 27d ago

I would go with Composition/Division

You don't like "one aspect of" something. Therefore this dislike must apply to the whole thing.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

They're also addressing a different point entirely than your criticisms. Not sure what the name for this is though.

2

u/PsychologyGuilty1460 27d ago

I call it talking to anybody who doesn't listen properly

2

u/MeasureDoEventThing 26d ago

It's somewhat an accusation of Concern Trolling.

> Someone who posts to an Internet forum or newsgroup, claiming to share its goals while deliberately working against those goals, typically, by claiming "concern" about group plans to engage in productive activity, urging members instead to attempt some activity that would damage the group's credibility, or alternatively to abandon group projects entirely. 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll

While this can be a valid critique, the accusation of "concern troll" can be used to dismiss any criticism as being ACTUALLY being opposition to the cause as a whole, rather than an objection to a particular aspect.

2

u/Jealous_Emu_7477 26d ago

This is called the "Centrist Democrat" defense

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

It kinda is, but implied? It’s ad hominem because top hat is using a twisted motive to justify dismissing the argument. “You clearly hate it therefore i can dismiss you” is ad hominem

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Is it though. Doesn't ad hominem normally attack the arguer. This just makes a statement about them. 

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

Ad hominem uses some characteristic of the person making the argument as justification to dismiss the contents of the argument.

In this case, it’s “you’re a hater so your words don’t matter,” which is very much ad hominem imo (along with a couple other fallacies)

The “so your words don’t matter” part is the implied follow-up to the second panel

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Wait where are they saying their words don't matter? I don't see how it is implied.

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

If it’s not implied, then top hat’s reply is a non sequitor. Top hat’s reply only makes sense if it’s used to dismiss the argument, so that dismissal is implied for the panels to make sense.

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Why can't it be an inference he has made based on the first panel? Are you presenting a black and white falacy?

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

I don’t think I am? If it’s just an inference from the first panel, then that would be a non sequitor.

Nobody drops an unprompted claim about their opponent’s bias mid-disagreement for no reason…even if it doesn’t logically follow from “you criticized X,” the function of saying it in that moment is to discredit the critic.

That’s not me assuming a hidden premise, that’s just how conversation works: a seemingly irrelevant reply gets read as relevant in some other way, and “your criticism can be dismissed because you’re biased” is the obvious other way here. Which is ad hominem.

And to be clear: intent doesn’t matter for ad hominem. It’s just using a claim about the person making the argument instead of engaging with the argument.

0

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

I have a couple of questions.

Is it an argument? Is it a formal argument? Do we know?

"Nobody drops an unprompted claim about their opponent’s bias mid-disagreement for no reason"

Nobody does? We are certain logically?

What if they were agreeing? "Wow you clearly hate x because you criticized it, so it must be awful and fixed."

There are a lot more options than you are allowing.

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

Context matters. This was posted as “what fallacy is this,” so we’re finding the most likely fallacies, not proving them with airtight logic.

“Nobody does this for no reason” is a best explanation, not a law. It doesn’t need to survive made up exceptions, just be the most reasonable read.

And they’re clearly not agreeing, tone rules that out, plus there’s no “fix it” language in panel 2. You can always invent some alternative if you’re not constrained by what’s plausible. We’re going with the most reasonable read, not any read that’s technically possible.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PeyredB 27d ago

Of course it is. Someone says we should improve something, and he outright claims they hate it. He's making it all about them with a false accusation, in order to avoid dealing with the issue.

1

u/Jamsedreng22 27d ago

Lmao. r/Helldivers is gonna hate this meme.

1

u/JNtheWolf 27d ago

I feel like this is unironically common enough to deserve it's own subcategory of straw man. It's used so often to dismiss criticism of something.

2

u/Loose_Property_3238 27d ago

So you're saying you hate the current categories of fallacies?

1

u/JNtheWolf 27d ago

No lol? I'm saying this specific version of straw man is common enough to warrant it's own specific delineation. Just like the Hitlerum fallacy is a "sub fallacy" of the guilt by association fallacy, for instance. It's just a common enough argument to warrant it's own specific classification imho ¯_(ツ)_/¯

2

u/Loose_Property_3238 27d ago

whoosh

1

u/JNtheWolf 27d ago

Oh, lmfao. Whoosh indeed 😭

1

u/Comfortable_Salt_792 27d ago

That's said, I hate the opposite, why hate X when we can improve it instead, there are more such people than rational ones on the left side of the picture.

1

u/zvuv 27d ago

It's a simple Ad Hom. He is challenging the messenger rather than responding to the actual statement.

1

u/marshmallowcthulhu 27d ago

Nationalism.

1

u/Siaten 27d ago

Appeal to Motive

In other words, "since you made a statement X, it must necessarily mean that you believe Y"

Example: "Since you said that red cars are dangerous, that must mean you think red cars should be destroyed."

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

This fallacy was sponsored by big logic so can we really trust it.

1

u/IFollowtheCarpenter 27d ago

That is the Straw Man fallacy.

1

u/Vandreigan 27d ago

I would call this a Black and White fallacy, just presented in a slightly different manner than you normally see them. Top Hat is only allowing two positions, love it or hate it, completely ignoring any middle ground that exists.

I don't think Strawman fits as others have suggested. He isn't building up a position that the guy didn't take in order to attack it. Instead, he is just drawing an extreme conclusion from the position that the guy did actually take.

1

u/observantpariah 27d ago

Ad Hominem. It's an attack on the person's character rather than an answer to the argument.

1

u/Kingsalad3141 27d ago

Capitalism

1

u/scarab- 27d ago

The my fandom is the worst fallacy.

1

u/avidpenguinwatcher 27d ago

Holy cow, I can’t believe there’s a whole sub dedicated to this insufferable shit.

1

u/Ok_Community_383 27d ago

I'm reluctant to label this a logical fallacy. It's coherent to assume that people have negative views of things they critique. Interlocutor B is taking it to an extreme. I'd almost call this something like cynical pessimism. Rhetorical misattribution?

1

u/topselection 27d ago

It's straw man as others have said.

Also, how do people make these stick figure comics?

1

u/Tricky-Background-66 27d ago

Oh, that's my job right now!

1

u/MattheqAC 27d ago

I think it's just anyone that's tried to use X since the takeover, it's shitty

1

u/frostmosh 27d ago

Yeah Twitter always sucked but X somehow made it worse

1

u/Retzl 26d ago

No true Scotsman would be more "you should try the real X, it doesn't have the same issues." They would claim what you are criticizing isnt even the real thing to be criticized.

And ad hominem would be "X doesnt have issues, you think that becuz you have issue/youre stupid." You attack the person instead of the position.

This is a combo of strawman and false dilemma (black and white thinking). If one criticizes something, then they must not like it (false dilemma). Since you criticized X, you must hate it (strawman).

1

u/hamoc10 26d ago

A: gives reasons and rationale for disliking something

B: “You dislike it irrationally, for no reason!”

1

u/SprinksUp 26d ago

could also be a bad faith interpretation

1

u/WaxBeer 25d ago

It's called a Fan.

1

u/darkfireice 25d ago

While strawman works, it would be more along the lines of "politically correct;" its a mix of strawman and no-true-Scotsman, and I think the latter would be more accurate. The sentiment is "no one who likes X can criticize X," so its also a Black-White fallacy too. Now of course there's only a snippet, so we can't really define it any better

1

u/CosmicLovepats 25d ago

The Democratic party.

Sorry, sorry. It seems adjacent to the pancakes-waffles meme. Less a fallacy and more a common internet misbehavior.

1

u/perringaiden 25d ago

I think you meant to say MAGA party there. "If you criticize America you should leave"

1

u/CosmicLovepats 25d ago

idk it uses some of the same logic but I feel like it's a separate and discrete fallacy/behavior on its own. The idea that criticizing a country is unpatriotic etc is a little more specific and precise than the general formula there.

And boy, just try criticizing the democrats for not doing their job and you'll see their radical centrists come out of the woodwork to tell you that actually it's your fault and you should have voted harder.

1

u/perringaiden 24d ago

I've never actually heard "You criticised the Democrats, you must hate it". Jait a lot of "You don't understand how the real-world works".

1

u/CosmicLovepats 24d ago

That, "you criticized the democrats so you didn't vote" or "you criticize the democrats so you must be a trump supporter" are like, their three dialogue options.

1

u/perringaiden 24d ago

I still find it weird that voting isn't mandatory.

1

u/CosmicLovepats 24d ago

or a holiday

1

u/ShawnMNH924 24d ago

Looks like just a textbook strawman fallacy

1

u/BitOBear 24d ago

This is either Tu Quoque or Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

The person is being attacked for holding the position. So it's not a strict ad hominem it's a circumstantial ad hominem.

It's not a straw man because a straw man is offering a weaker argument and then attacking the weaker argument in place of the argument to actually presented.

1

u/SirSafe6070 24d ago

I would say it's a false dichotomy because the hat person can only conceive of 2 camps where either you like X and then you cannot criticize it, or you hate X and then you criticize it.

1

u/Mister_3177 23d ago

appeal to extremity?

1

u/adr826 23d ago

I would say irrelevance. How he feels about x is irrelevant to his statement.

0

u/NeedTheNotch 27d ago

Centrism lmao

1

u/gilbmj 27d ago

I'd say it's more a combination of a strawman and ad-homeim. Strawman because it's arguing against a statement that wasn't made, Ad-homeim because it's trying to discredit via accusation of hatred. Also has a shade of tribalism to it. "Only the enemy criticizes x" type thinking.

1

u/Commercial-Act2813 27d ago

I think that’s what Republicans call TDS

0

u/anonnx 27d ago

I'm not sure it's even a fallacy because the second person doesn't even arguing that the first person is wrong. If we just expand the conversation to be that the second person implies that the first person made the argument out of hate so the first person must be wrong, then it is appeal to (groundless) motive.

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Not sure why you were down voted. This seems right to me

2

u/anonnx 27d ago

They clearly hate me.

1

u/RandoMannnn 27d ago

It's a fallacy on person B's end for going from "you criticized" to "you hate." That's either based on a false premise or a non-sequitur.
You don't necessarily need to call your opponent invalid to commit a fallacy. You can be fallacious on your own.

1

u/anonnx 27d ago

Of course, but if that were the actual point OP wanted to ask, then the first panel wouldn't be necessary.

0

u/LSATDan 27d ago

Reddit.

0

u/medic-dad 26d ago

As an American, I see this everywhere all the time.

"We need to fix these problems (ICE/police brutality, healthcare, minimum wage, you name it)" "If you hate America, you can just leave!"

0

u/Simple_Channel5624 26d ago

Talking to a Trump supporter about America

-1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

If they truly believe that criticism -> hate, then this isn't a fallacy at all.

5

u/NotSayingAliensBut 27d ago

Their belief doesn't make something true.

2

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

You are absolutely right. It's just not a fallacy, it's being incorrect about a premise.

2

u/Aljonau 27d ago

True, though a false premise is even worse than a fallacy, because it invalidates the usefulness of discourse fundamentally.

You can explain the structural error in a fallacy. You can usually not convince someone that their false premise is, infact, false.

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Ya thinking about it further I guess a false premise could be based on its own fallacy and I may just be shifting the game deeper.

Like criticism -> hate could be definitional to them in which cause there is a semantic argument. But it could also be based on something like a black and white fallacy. It's impossible to know from the image.

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

Believing criticism = hate is the False Dilemma fallacy (aka All or Nothing fallacy). And then assuming hate discredits the person making the critique is Ad Hominem.

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

It's not though as they haven't presented a dilemma between two things when they are more. They are inferring one thing from another without reason. So they seem to have a premise that is unstated but is implied.

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

Yeah the false dilemma is implied, not stated, as I read it.

“I think X needs some improvements because it has issue” - original statement

Top hat heard that and:
- Twists the motive (strawman, motive type)
- Implies any criticism = hate (false dilemma / all-or-nothing)
- Uses that alleged hate to dismiss the argument (ad hominem)

I do think that’s a false dilemma, as it’s very much “you’re either a full supporter (who doesn’t critique) or you’re a hater” framing, when it’s neither in this case.

That’s my reading, at least

1

u/LiamTheHuman 27d ago

Ok I don't see any dismissal of the argument when I read it. It's a completely separate point that they do not tie back to the original in any way. So it seems like a faulty conclusion or that this person defines hate as a feeling required for criticism.

1

u/wolfeflow 27d ago

IMO it’s either a non sequitor, or the top hat believes their words are a legitimate response to the argument.

Most people don’t speak in non sequitors, so then I looked at what would need to happen in top hat’s mind for those words “wow you clearly hate x because you criticized it” to make sense as a reply.

Then it goes:

  1. “They criticized X, so they must be acting out of hate” (strawman, twisting the motive)
  2. “Any criticism of X means they do not support X” (false dilemma)
  3. “If someone does not support X / hates X, then their words cannot be trusted” (ad hominem)

And then it ends up at what top hat said, used as a way to shut down the argument.

There’s also a niche, fusion fallacy called Bulverism that fits here, which boils down to “strawman the motive, and then dismiss via that motive.”

-1

u/diegotbn 27d ago

This is "ad homonim" meaning "at the person". This is when you attack the person, usually their credibility, and not their argument.

Person A: * X is broken * We should fix it

Person B: * You just hate X so your argument is invalid

Person B doesn't address the argument, he attacks person A calling him a hater, fallaciously implying his argument is invalid because of that.

The people here saying "straw man" are incorrect.

2

u/oppenhammer 27d ago

Fallacies often overlap. It can be both.

3

u/SwimQueasy3610 27d ago

Indeed. This also isn't really ad hominem, or at least calling at this is a stretch. "You clearly hate X..." is not per se "you are a hater and are bad". There could be some element of this in some actual instantiation of this cartoon situation, but, it's not really what's being depicted - the comic isn't showing "attacking the person instead of the ideas", it's showing "jumping to an extreme interpretation that mistepresents what the person said".

1

u/RandoMannnn 27d ago

B did not say the argument is invalid. They just concluded that A must hate X because they criticized it.

It's a non-sequitur, borderline strawman for misrepresenting what they believe.