ApplesPotatoGardner's definitions
In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans.
Something to be aware of; however, is that it is also a slippery slope fallacy in which bad actors can claim any one thing can also mean another thing without having to explain why logically. The counter to this is to ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion, to which, they won't be able to actually explain why logically.
Equating legitimate generalized statements or criticisms and concerns to hate is generally how the Dog Whistle Slippery Slope Fallacy is abused by bad actors looking to put words or intent in their victim's mouths.
This also leads to a circular logic problem where the person injecting the slippery slope dog whistling racist intent into the meaning of a generalized statement will claim everyone who disagrees with them are bigots, and they know they are bigots because they don't agree with their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are correct because all who disagree with them are bigots.
Something to be aware of; however, is that it is also a slippery slope fallacy in which bad actors can claim any one thing can also mean another thing without having to explain why logically. The counter to this is to ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion, to which, they won't be able to actually explain why logically.
Equating legitimate generalized statements or criticisms and concerns to hate is generally how the Dog Whistle Slippery Slope Fallacy is abused by bad actors looking to put words or intent in their victim's mouths.
This also leads to a circular logic problem where the person injecting the slippery slope dog whistling racist intent into the meaning of a generalized statement will claim everyone who disagrees with them are bigots, and they know they are bigots because they don't agree with their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are correct because all who disagree with them are bigots.
Normie: We need to be tougher on crime!
Wokie: That's a racist dog whistle!
Normie: What about it is racist?
Wokie: You're calling for arresting more inserts racial group(s) here that aren't "white".
Normie: How so?
Wokie: Because you're racist! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Wokie: That's a racist dog whistle!
Normie: What about it is racist?
Wokie: You're calling for arresting more inserts racial group(s) here that aren't "white".
Normie: How so?
Wokie: Because you're racist! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
by ApplesPotatoGardner May 13, 2023
Get the Dog Whistle mug.Someone who is against racism towards specific racial group(s) they like, but also advocates for and/or encourages racism against different particular racial group(s) they don't like. The preferential racist tries to hide behind the fact they are against racism only partially as long as it is towards racial groups they prefer, and in doing so they think they are somehow granted special privileges that make it okay for them to be racist towards racial groups they don't prefer. Additionally they will often use nonsense mental gymnastics and fallacious reasoning to blame the problems of racial group(s) they like on the racial groups they don't like as a way to disguise and legitimize their racism. They are hypocrites and ironically, racist.
Preferential Racist: We need to finally have a conversation about the racism towards racial group X. Other racial group Y is inherently bad and the root of all of their problems!
Rationalist: By have a conversation you actually mean you just want us to receive your blessed wisdom through a monologue in which your aim is to convert us to your nonsense ideology. If any of us disagree with you, you will just call us racist, accuse us of being part of the problem, and put us in a box of one of the racial groups you don't like. So you don't actually want to have a conversation. Anything that can be seen as racial progress is something that will be talked around, instead of celebrated.
Rationalist: By have a conversation you actually mean you just want us to receive your blessed wisdom through a monologue in which your aim is to convert us to your nonsense ideology. If any of us disagree with you, you will just call us racist, accuse us of being part of the problem, and put us in a box of one of the racial groups you don't like. So you don't actually want to have a conversation. Anything that can be seen as racial progress is something that will be talked around, instead of celebrated.
by ApplesPotatoGardner August 10, 2023
Get the Preferential Racist mug.The label 'transphobe' functions as a snarl word, similar to terms like 'Wog' (Suppressive Person) in Scientology or 'Glober' in Flat-Earth communities. These labels are used to frame outsiders or critics as 'heathens' or, in this case, as 'The Boogeyman.' This form of outsider labeling is designed to equate criticism of the belief system with harassment, fostering a narrative of fraudulent victimhood to shame and silence dissenters. In this context, rejecting transgender ideology is often framed as bigotry, while the belief system itself requires the denial of biological science and reliance on numerous logical fallacies, much like the way flat-earthers deny established physics. In both cases, these labels serve to discredit criticism, reinforcing the belief system by positioning science denial as a marker of 'the other' and by requiring followers to embrace false reasoning. While the Flat-Earth movement tends to be more passive and tolerant of outsiders, transgender ideology is often more aggressive and intolerant of dissent.
"After publicly questioning aspects of transgender ideology on social media, the dissenter was quickly labeled a 'transphobe' by critics— a term intended to shut down the conversation and discredit any opposition to the prevailing narrative of the cult and its allies."
by ApplesPotatoGardner January 15, 2025
Get the Transphobe mug.Answer Erosion (noun)
A logical fallacy in which a person repeatedly asks increasingly difficult or detailed questions to undermine the validity of earlier correct answers. The goal is to gradually discredit the original responses, despite them being accurate, by introducing new and higher standards of inquiry that were not present when the answers were first given. This tactic can also be used to distract from or avoid addressing the original point being contested.
A logical fallacy in which a person repeatedly asks increasingly difficult or detailed questions to undermine the validity of earlier correct answers. The goal is to gradually discredit the original responses, despite them being accurate, by introducing new and higher standards of inquiry that were not present when the answers were first given. This tactic can also be used to distract from or avoid addressing the original point being contested.
Example:
Person A: "The capital of France is Paris."
Person B: "But what’s the population of Paris? Can you tell me the exact area of Paris? What about the history of Paris in the 18th century?"
Person A: "Well, I didn’t give all those details, but the answer is still correct."
Person B: "Ah, but you didn’t really know the full story, did you?"
In this example, Person B uses Answer Erosion not only to undermine Person A's correct response by raising the bar with more complex questions but also to shift the focus away from the original, simple fact (the capital of France), effectively distracting from the main point.
Person A: "The capital of France is Paris."
Person B: "But what’s the population of Paris? Can you tell me the exact area of Paris? What about the history of Paris in the 18th century?"
Person A: "Well, I didn’t give all those details, but the answer is still correct."
Person B: "Ah, but you didn’t really know the full story, did you?"
In this example, Person B uses Answer Erosion not only to undermine Person A's correct response by raising the bar with more complex questions but also to shift the focus away from the original, simple fact (the capital of France), effectively distracting from the main point.
by ApplesPotatoGardner December 24, 2024
Get the Answer Erosion mug.To mock a midwit using their own bad logic to make an ironic argument in a way they would, but also in a way where most of them will actually agree lest they expose themselves to the wolves that are the other stupider less-aware midwits.
This works so well, because a vast majority of midwits are on the less-aware end and generally care more about agreeing with something they already agree with especially if many other midwits already agree they all agree with it!
Dissenters to the midwits ideals are thus automatically labeled, "bad" for X emotional, fallacious, or nonsensical reasons. Legitimate refutations of takes or disagreements are labeled as "hit-pieces". Anecdotal experiences with a single person from another disagreeing group automatically means that person and anyone who agrees with them is also "bad", etc. The reason The Midwit Trap works so well is to disagree with your agreeing yet mocking take is to open themselves up to the same "out group bad" mentality they and the others they surround themselves with have. This is The Midwit Trap.
This works so well, because a vast majority of midwits are on the less-aware end and generally care more about agreeing with something they already agree with especially if many other midwits already agree they all agree with it!
Dissenters to the midwits ideals are thus automatically labeled, "bad" for X emotional, fallacious, or nonsensical reasons. Legitimate refutations of takes or disagreements are labeled as "hit-pieces". Anecdotal experiences with a single person from another disagreeing group automatically means that person and anyone who agrees with them is also "bad", etc. The reason The Midwit Trap works so well is to disagree with your agreeing yet mocking take is to open themselves up to the same "out group bad" mentality they and the others they surround themselves with have. This is The Midwit Trap.
An example of executing The Midwit Trap: Responding to a midwit online with "I agree." updoot and all, and then use the most openly blatantly stupid midwit logic they all would use to come to a conclusion that they would actually agree with. The trick here is the argument has to be so openly blatantly stupid/circular/hypocritical that even some of the midwits might notice. The trick here is it will never be the majority of the hivemind so any midwits who actually do notice and call you out, you can just turn around and throw them to the wolves that are the other 90% of midwits who were too dumb to get it. By doing this they will now be labeled as part of the out-group and therefore in the hivemind of the midwits, bad.
by ApplesPotatoGardner October 15, 2023
Get the The Midwit Trap mug.Some dude who claims to run a business, and keeps using certain buzzwords like "Cash Flow" and "Going big / Take it to the next level" constantly but in reality is learning by the seat of his pants and really has no idea what he is doing. Big dreamer, but lacks direction and knowledge. Not necessarily a bad guy, but that one Youtube video he watched about running a successful business is running through his head on nonstop repeat everyday and he acts like he's going to be a millionaire in the next 9 months.
Business Bro: Once I achieve optimal synergy with positive cash flow energy I'll blow up and go big so I can take it to the next level! Let's do this!
by ApplesPotatoGardner February 3, 2023
Get the Business Bro mug.The Midwit Paradox is a phenomenon where a midwit or group of midwits cannot understand an out groups arguments, because they can't spot fallacious arguments that they and their own in group makes. How can anyone expect them to understand out group concepts & ideas when they can't spot the most blatant and openly fallacious mistakes of their own ideas?
Example of The Midwit Paradox:
Midwit: Significant disparities between racial groups can only be indicative of environmental or genetic reasons, and that any environmental factor must be racism!
Rationalist: That's a black & white fallacy. That is erroneous because many environmental factors such as culture, religion, and the differing traditional values, or various nuances that come with them are based on free choice. Anyone spouting what you are arguing via reductio ad absurdum would be forced to conclude that free will is somehow racist... which is ridiculous.
Midwit: No it's not, you're just rambling nonsense! The experts agree with me! That's not the consensus! SOUUUURRRCEEE? You're bad and a newtsee! Anyone else who agrees with you is also bad and a newtsee/boogeyman! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Rationalist: *Facepalm*
Midwit: Significant disparities between racial groups can only be indicative of environmental or genetic reasons, and that any environmental factor must be racism!
Rationalist: That's a black & white fallacy. That is erroneous because many environmental factors such as culture, religion, and the differing traditional values, or various nuances that come with them are based on free choice. Anyone spouting what you are arguing via reductio ad absurdum would be forced to conclude that free will is somehow racist... which is ridiculous.
Midwit: No it's not, you're just rambling nonsense! The experts agree with me! That's not the consensus! SOUUUURRRCEEE? You're bad and a newtsee! Anyone else who agrees with you is also bad and a newtsee/boogeyman! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Rationalist: *Facepalm*
by ApplesPotatoGardner October 17, 2023
Get the The Midwit Paradox mug.