somebody made a guide, an underground book like the anarchist cookbook, about Demagogy.
This person, lets call him "Trollface". What he does, is carefully plan an abstract argument with as many logical and rhetorical fallacies possible. There are some mandates:
Red Herring
(Oh, education? In order to fix education, we need to create jobs, which NAFTA will achieve)
Straw Man
(Oh, so you believe in climate change. I suppose your a liberal al gore supporter.)
False Vision
(But i saw it! Of course i can't prove i saw it, but i did!)
Ad Hominem
(The water/ideas from this persons well/mind is poisoned; and so is unfit to drink/listen)
Then, they felt guilty and attended church when they noticed...
Emotional Appeal
(The guy who raped my wife 8 years ago voted for Obama in this election.) (This is often used to either incite rage against bad liberals, or to make an issue undiscussable. I know someone in RL who falsely claims this every time someone mentions obamacare outside the context of "its evil")
Circular Reasoning
(My proof? My word. The reason to trust my word? I wouldn't lie. How do you know? I gave my word.)
Slippery Slope
(Legalization of alcohol will destroy our nation and turn everyone into worthless drunks with herpaids!)
False Accountant
(I was at an event last week when Barrack Obama admitted being a muslim; and is hiding Osama, his cousin, in the white house! --Hey, i was also there bro, Did you see me with the red shirt? --Yeah, i was the one with the blonde chick!)
False Accountant is my own "invented" term, meaning:
A fallacy in which one person assumes 2 identities. The first identity makes an outrageous claim. Then, the second person enters, the "False Accountant" who pretends "Ahh, i saw this too!" This creates the illusion that multiple people support this line of thinking.
Midas Tongue
A fallacy in which a person assumes the identity of a despised figure (adolph hitler/ku klux klan) then pretends to support the idea that the real person behind the identity actually opposes. This is often used up front to invoke godwin's law later.
You could also say "the touch of golden shit" that "people who touch this issue are full of shit". You can see this type of fallacy used by the religious right to deny climate change and evolution.
Now that trollface has learned how to "Write in fallacies", he does the unthinkable and clones himself! He is no longer a person, but an archetype in the collective unconsciousness, latent within us all. (Jungian, not Freudian)
The only way to stop this madness is to call out every single fallacy you see, and no matter how petty it makes you look, you are doing the world a service. Reporting fallacies is not actually making a claim or saying anything, and it can make one look like a douchebag.
However, once a fallacy has been inserted, the issue is no longer about refuting the fallacy to the person making the claims - (often the person writes in a way to NOT make claims but rather to oppose claims, ala the skeptic on every issue) - the issue is now about making sure other readers are aware of:
What fallacy was used; why it is a fallacy. What makes it a fallacy.
Then, the acts of the mind:
remind the readers that you must first define operational terms - second is to support your argument with logic, using these terms. Third is to demonstrate or rationalize relevance; that your operational term, and materials are relevant to the issue.
I believe that with the right critical thinking being emphasized that trolls will become ignored. You can not prevent their behavior, but you can attempt to impact how the behavior is received by an audience.
