odoacre

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

You know how it goes. Trump says something outrageous, the press attack him, and the right defends him by saying he's just joking or is otherwise not serious.

It's kind of the opposite of the "No true scotsman" fallacy, where you'd start with a claim and then progressively move the goalpoasts to exclude falsifications.

E.g:

• Person A: All dogs are friendly
• Person B: Such and such dog bit me when I was a childe
• Person A: That must have been a rogue dog, or not a true dog

This is also called an appeal to purity, as the counterexamples brought are never good enough and the gloalposts are moved and the target constantly redefined

In the Trolling case the argument is an appeal to IMpuri