zlacker

He also chose the word "kafkatrap", a word coined by a notorious racist.

>>DagAgr+(OP)
Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.

>>textge+n2
"Kafkatrap" is a meaningless term, beyond "stop calling me a racist just for saying racist things".

Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.

>>DagAgr+3a
Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that?

Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.

>>textge+xi
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kafkatrap?s=t

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kafkatrap

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=kafka...

>>DagAgr+0j
Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or "appeal to authority"; funnily enough it doesnt prevent those existing either.

>>textge+Bo
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

Still not seeing it.

>>DagAgr+Cr
Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.

>>textge+Gt
Ah yes, Wikipedia, with one source form a libertarian propaganda rag. Very reputable.

Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.

>>DagAgr+ju
And at last you've taken my advice

> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.

Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

>>textge+Bx
Feel free to provide me wrong by showing a non-libertarian source that takes this term seriously.

>>DagAgr+(OP)
Ironically, you're employing a fallacious debate tactic (ad-hominem attack) while incorrectly trying to label a different debate tactic fallacious.

>>DagAgr+Ux
Appeal to authority (points for variety at least) is a logical fallacy that I literally pointed out earlier.

>>textge+SA
You really don't understand how logical fallacies work at all, do you.

>>DagAgr+(OP)
It describes a fallacy and have no idea who coined it. First learned of it on HN, actually.

You don't know who coined "coined", but they may well have been a racist. Are you going to stop using it if so? Does that mean it's no longer useful for communication? Are you going to investigate every word on the chance it might've been and strike those from the lexicon?

>>DagAgr+JK
Well I must admit I haven't had as much practice at them as you have.

>>Reedx+aP
It is, in fact, not useful for communication, because it does not honestly communicate anything. It exists only to undermine people who try to call you out on making bigoted remarks. It was coined by ESR, and is popular mainly with people with a strong affinity for bigotry, like him, and also libertarians.