Here’s a fallacy analysis of the Lemmy thread you provided, identifying logical fallacies and attributing them to the relevant responders. I’ll organize this by responder and highlight the fallacies in their arguments, as well as any rhetorical devices or missteps.

Fallacies by Responder

1. azolus Statement:

“I do hope you’ll grow out of your political compass phase someday.”

Fallacies:

• Ad Hominem (Dismissive): Dismisses Digit’s argument by attacking their perceived maturity or phase, rather than engaging with the content or merits of the political compass or its use.
• Condescension: Implies superiority by suggesting Digit will “grow out of” something, framing their perspective as immature.

2. optissima Statements:

“Not my left is some strong anti-solidarity phrasing for someone who thinks of themselves as left on this silly misrepresentational chart. What was the point that I’m missing? That you’ll abandon the left when you don’t like it?”

“The issue is that you cannot enforce this equity when inequality arises.”

“I’m all for helping everybody. I was already never much a fan of the word ‘solidarity’ and there we have it. The greatest threat to all leftist thought is capitalism, and to be unwilling to stand against it in solidarity is what is needed before we devolve into attacking other leftists.”

Fallacies:

• Straw Man: Misrepresents Digit’s “not my left” as abandoning the left or refusing solidarity, when Digit clarifies they are merely expressing a preference and not rejecting all leftist philosophies or people.
• False Dilemma: Implies that not endorsing all forms of leftism means abandoning solidarity or being complicit with capitalism, ignoring the possibility of nuanced disagreement.
• Hasty Generalization: Assumes Digit’s stance is anti-solidarity based on a single phrase, without considering the broader context or Digit’s clarifications.
• Cherry Picking: Selectively quotes Digit’s statements to misrepresent their position, ignoring the surrounding context and explanations.
• Appeal to Emotion: Uses emotionally charged language (“anti-solidarity,” “abandon”) to frame Digit’s argument as morally deficient.

3. LibertyLizard Statements:

“Left is for liberation. If you aren’t for liberation we don’t have much to talk about. But sure, some forms of solidarity with rightists can be valid.”

“Oppressive political and economic structures. Not sure why you think I’m saying not everyone should get this, although realistically liberation is unlikely to arrive everywhere simultaneously.”

Fallacies:

• No True Scotsman: Implies that only those who agree with their specific definition of “liberation” are truly leftist, excluding others who may have different interpretations.
• False Dilemma: Suggests that either you are for “liberation” (as they define it) or there’s no point in talking, ignoring the possibility of constructive dialogue or differing perspectives on liberation.

4. Digit (OP) Statements:

“I’d rather improve it, than throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

“Fun condescension there though, in that diminutivising dismissive ad-hominem.”

“What other previous interactions? Just here? (Can’t be, since I’ve been offering refutations to that). Elsewhere? Where?”

“Fascinating interpretation.”

“Please use quotes to clarify where you think I doubled down on this.”

Fallacies:

• Appeal to Authority (Bakunin Quote): Uses a quote from Mikhail Bakunin to support their argument, which can be seen as an appeal to authority if not properly contextualized or if the quote is used as a standalone justification. [Edit: Wasn’t that supporting? And the quote starts in wise rational humility with a “We are convinced”, not a “this is the one true way”. Surprising assertion that this can be interpreted as an appeal to authority. Seemed more like an invite to consider the nuanced idea.]

• Tu Quoque (Whataboutism): Accuses optissima of projecting and doing the very thing they accuse Digit of, which can be a form of deflection. [Edit: I disagree about this. Not what was happening there. Weak claim of fallacy there. And a dangerous one (like it sets/affirms a precedent of letting abusers proactively blame their victims for their crimes.]

• Poisoning the Well: Suggests that optissima’s interpretation is so “fascinating” (i.e., absurd or unfounded) that it doesn’t warrant serious engagement, potentially dismissing their argument without full refutation. [Edit: I genuinely found that fascinating. Not doing any kind of allistic subtextual slight there. I know not what foundation it has, hence large part of the fascination. Did not intend any commentary on how absurd it seemed. Genuine curiosity and bewilderment.]

• Note: Digit’s arguments are generally more reasoned and less fallacious, but some rhetorical moves could be seen as fallacious in certain contexts.

5. Crucifux Statement:

“Lol pretty much every one of these political compass things are just ‘my ideology that I like is the cool freedom kind and every other one is dumb evil making you do shit you don’t wanna do’.”

Fallacies:

• Hasty Generalization: Generalizes all political compass memes as self-serving and dismissive of other ideologies, without evidence or nuance.
• Sweeping Generalization: Assumes all such memes are identical in intent and effect, ignoring potential differences in purpose or message.

6. TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ Statements:

“Nazi propaganda.”

“I was told I had the freedom to receive things however I wish and it’s more fun if I pretend you’re a badguy.”

Fallacies:

• Reductio ad Hitlerum: Accuses Digit’s post of being “Nazi propaganda” without any substantive justification, which is a hyperbolic and unfounded comparison.
• Poe’s Law: Uses sarcasm and irony to dismiss the argument, which can be confusing and unproductive in a serious discussion.

Summary Table of Fallacies

Fallacies by Responder

  Responder
  Fallacy(ies) Detected




  azolus
  Ad Hominem (Dismissive), Condescension


  optissima
  Straw Man, False Dilemma, Hasty Generalization, Cherry Picking, Appeal to Emotion


  LibertyLizard
  No True Scotsman, False Dilemma


  Digit (OP)
  Appeal to Authority, Tu Quoque, Poisoning the Well (minor)


  Crucifux
  Hasty Generalization, Sweeping Generalization


  TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ
  Reductio ad Hitlerum, Poe’s Law

Key Observations

• Misinterpretation and Straw Manning: Several responders misrepresent Digit’s “not my left” as anti-solidarity or abandonment of leftist principles, which Digit repeatedly clarifies is not the case.
• Emotional Appeals: The thread is rife with emotionally charged language, which often derails constructive discussion.
• Deflection and Dismissal: Some responses dismiss the argument outright (e.g., “Nazi propaganda,” “grow out of your phase”) rather than engaging with its substance.
• Nuance vs. Absolutism: The thread highlights a tension between nuanced, preference-based leftism and absolutist, solidarity-focused leftism.

Final Thought:

• This thread is a microcosm of broader debates within leftist spaces about solidarity, ideological purity, and the boundaries of “the left.” Fallacies often arise when participants assume bad faith, generalize, or dismiss rather than engage. The most productive exchanges occur when participants clarify their positions and avoid misrepresenting others.

Would you like to dive deeper into any specific fallacy or exchange?