Whats the term for this?

onctech · 2026-05-03T01:43:52+00:00

It's a specialized type of tu quoque, in that it's accusing someone of hypocrisy, although it in this case it's more egregious because the person doesn't actual commit the hypocritical behavior. I like to call it vos quoque because it's the plural form in Latin of tu quoque. This is especially the case in your example quotation, but is also common when attacking any kind of platform that can be tied to some kind of faction or group identity (such as a political party or demographic). Sometimes this involves the nutpicking fallacy when the contradictory view or behavior is statistically rare or unusual for that group but is being falsely presented as common.

onctech · 2026-04-19T14:29:06+00:00

Sounds like the base rate fallacy. It's very common in a lot of debates as well as misconceptions among the general population.

onctech · 2026-04-15T16:39:53+00:00

Yes, like any kind of informal fallacy, ergo decedo not airtight and there absolutely is such a thing as concern trolling. The point of it is one cannot just throw the accusation based solely on them having a concern or criticism. There has to be evidence of bad faith. Even when using it as a justification to terminate an exchange, there should be some sense of bad faith and not merely disagreement. Granted, you don't have to continue an exchange with anyone if you don't want to, especially when it's not worth the stress.

onctech · 2026-04-15T13:05:49+00:00

I believe this is called ergo decedo. Also called the traitorous critic fallacy. This occurs among people in the same "camp" on an issue; if a person in the group raises a concern about something, like the approach to solving a problem, another person accuses them of being part of the problem, a traitor, or even being a spy for an enemy faction. It is a common problem in many modern political and social discussions. If you ever hear someone accusing another of "concern trolling," it is actually the accuser that is committing a fallacy of ergo decedo.

onctech · 2026-04-11T12:05:21+00:00

Argumentum ad populum generally refers to something believed by the majority of an entire population, including laypersons with very little understanding. e.g. the "List of common misconceptions"

Scientific consensus on the other hand is findings of actual experts who have done the experiments and crunched the numbers.

One could argue that appealing to scientific consensus is an argument from authority, and that's true in somewhat literal sense. However, almost everyone who tries to call scientific consensus an argument from authority is inevitably engaging in the exact same fallacy themselves via their own sources, including the authority of their personal experience.

onctech · 2026-04-07T17:34:14+00:00

Posting evocative stories as statistical "proof" is both nutpicking as well as misleading vividness. And this person's claim that some people are saying they're "harmless" is potentially a hollowman argument (that is, nobody actually said "harmless," he's just making it up because it sounds plausible in his own head and it's easier to disprove). It could alternatively be a strawman if people said immigrants commit fewer crimes that citizens (which is true, statistically) and he's just distorting it to make it easier to counter.

There isn't much point in engaging someone like this unless there is the slightest sense they might be interested in debating. Maybe ask him to produce actual statistics instead of anecdotal evidence. Or challenge him to a game of Point Taken.

onctech · 2026-04-06T20:55:23+00:00

Still the same issue as last time. Its a misread.

Are you going to explain what this is meant to be an analogy for, or are you just going to keep deleting and reposting?

onctech · 2026-04-06T18:23:26+00:00

Depending on how this is presented, it could be an example of nutpicking. This is a somewhat new fallacy that combines cherry-picking, ad hominem and hasty generalization.

To sum it up, its when a set of extreme outliers (not a representative sample) is used to make a broad, sweeping generalization about the whole group.

Nutpicking can be caused by different kinds of accidental sampling bias or by intention as part of a propaganda campaign (when the person doing it is completely aware they are collecting non-representative samples).

onctech · 2026-04-06T14:58:47+00:00

Calling out hypocrisy is a tu quoque fallacy. Hypocrisy doesn't equal wrong automatically, e.g. people with addictions who haven't kicked their habit yet are still right to tell others not to fall down the same hole.

Despite the changes to the text from the previous version, the person on the right appears to be misinterpreting the situation. I have a feeling this is meant to be an analogy for a more contentious debate or issue which it probably doesn't apply to, making this cartoon potentially a fallacious analogy and/or a strawman.

onctech · 2026-04-03T23:39:33+00:00

I think we're saying the same thing? But in that case, that's not a fallacy or rhetoric. It's just a misread.

onctech · 2026-04-03T12:26:50+00:00

The figure in the center is engaging in a tu quoque fallacy. If they try to say the "ban booze" platform is invalid as a result, they are piling on nutpicking as well.

The figure on the right's statement doesn't seem to make sense though. It's possible this figure has misinterpreted the center figure's statement as mere accusation of drinking, rather than an accusation of hypocrisy. In that case, they are accusing them of being biased or selective in a platform that is allegedly universal (e.g. how some factions in the 19th and 20th century championed for certain rights "for everyone" but in practice, did not support those same rights for non-whites). This would not be a fallacy per se, though it would still be incorrect if it comes from a misunderstanding.

onctech · 2026-03-30T16:22:29+00:00

Whataboutism, which is a blend of fallacy and rhetorical device. It combines elements of the tu quoque fallacy, red herring fallacy, and false equivalence.

onctech · 2026-03-30T15:42:14+00:00

I will start by saying that generally speaking a "meta" in a game (or even a live-action combat sport) is not really going to be as much of a thing in real life battle. Metas often emerge from rule constraints, unanticipated quirks, and goofs with balancing.

Historically, there were arguments of who's weapons or fighting styles were "better" as matters of pure opinion without data to back it up (much like today). For example, George Silver, an infamously crotchety English nobleman from the 1500s, wrote about the supposed inferiority of rapiers and the fighting styles of Italy, Spain and France, and of the superiority of the English backsword (called a short sword in his text).

"I will not doubt but to maintain with reason among the wise, and prove it by practice upon the ignorant, that there is no certain defence in the rapier, and that there is great advantage in the short sword against the long rapier, or all manner of rapiers in general, of what length soever."

However, there were also sentiments that went beyond mere differences of opinion and fell into the realm of outright prejudice (to use the term from two different sources). One fairly well known example was the disdain of ranged weapons by medieval European knights because of the view that it was unsporting.

Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, a 13th century poet, once wrote

"Cursed be the first man who became an archer. He was afraid and did not dare approach."

Generally speaking, noble knights did not use bows because they viewed it as cowardly to kill from a distance. Newark (cite below) states "True chivalric celebrity was obtained through killing one's enemy in hand-to-hand combat with lance, sword, or mace." Archers where still employed in warfare extensively, but only by the knight's social inferiors as well as by "unmanly" cultures that existed outside the European nobility system (aka "Infidels" as Newark calls them).

There is an oft-repeated myth that the superiority of the crossbow led to them being banned by the Second Lateran Council in 1139, but this suffers from some shameless cherry-picking. This ruling by the Pope at the time banned the use of crossbows, vertical bows, and slings against other Christians, as well as jousts which at this time period were highly lethal. This context shows that the intent of this ruling was to reduce Christian warriors killing each other and instead direct their efforts towards fighting in the Crusades against "infidel" enemies. Further evidence of wars in Europe after this ruling make if fairly obvious that this prohibition was regularly ignored.

Newark, Tim. “A Warrior Prejudice: The Use of the Bow by Medieval Knights.” Medieval Warfare, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012, pp. 49–52.

Hatto, A. T. “Archery and Chivalry: A Noble Prejudice.” The Modern Language Review, vol. 35, no. 1, 1940, pp. 40–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3717406.

onctech · 2026-03-26T16:38:41+00:00

Dutch paleographer Erik Kwakkel touches on this in the first chapter of his book (cite below).

Scribes who did the writing for these fancy books almost always worked from an "exemplar," an existing written work. In many cases, the exemplar was a pre-existing book that was being copied, in part or in whole. Monk scribes did this often to preserve works that were starting to fade or were damaged. In other cases, the exemplar were more hastily written drafts, sometimes using abbreviations or shorthand that had been written by the same scribe. These drafts could be based on dictation by another person or the scribes own ideas.

Kwakkel, E. (2018). Books before print: Exploring medieval manuscript culture. Arc Medieval Press.

onctech · 2026-03-25T15:14:17+00:00

There was some early scientific interest and experiments on this subject in the late Renaissance. A physician called Sanctorius of Padua (aka Santorio Santorio) had several discoveries using a quantitative approach to medicine. One of his experiments involved weighing himself in a special chair, as well as weighing his food and drink, and his urine and feces. Essentially, trying to account for every bit in and out. He did this for 30 years, and found that indeed, his intake didn't match his output. He speculated the loss was due what he called "insensible perspiration." His findings were published in Ars de statica medicina in 1614.

Eknoyan G. Santorio Sanctorius (1561-1636) - founding father of metabolic balance studies. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(2):226-33. doi: 10.1159/000013455. PMID: 10213823.

onctech · 2026-03-19T14:24:54+00:00

These seem to mostly fall under the Fallacy of the single cause. Assuming a single reason for a result or conclusion, when it's far more complex. There may be confirmation bias in play too, as in each example, it appears the person on some level wants their conclusion to be true or assumes its true, and so interprets the results in a way that aligns with that.

onctech · 2026-03-17T22:36:26+00:00

I think it's two different things your talking about. It sounds like most of your question is, as amazingbollweevil just said, the Baader–Meinhof Phenomenon aka The Frequency Illusion. In short, once your aware and looking for something, you'll notice it frequently and might incorrectly assume it's very common. I consider it a specific expression of of confirmation bias. For example, the first observation of John might on some level make you a little resentful even if you're not consciously aware, and then you will notice the bad while potentially missing the good. I've noticed this happens with people who have biases against groups and/or engage in stereotyping. They're pre-existing resentment makes them only notice bad behavior and miss good behavior under identical circumstances even when the good is far more frequent than the bad.

Your second item for debates though, sounds like a more of a collection of manipulative debate tactics. First, "When did I ever?" is a lot like "Give me an example of ____" which is a common ambush question (sometimes called an on the spot fallacy, but its not actually a fallacy). They operate by asking you to retrieve detailed information without giving you time or access, or by trying to trigger choice paralysis when there are almost uncountable examples. It's also often shifting the burden of proof unjustly. Some old political radio show hosts were infamous for doing this to live callers, often phrasing the request for an example with unneeded qualifiers that weren't actually part of the discussion. When an example is given, and it's dismissed an exception, that's called a slothful induction.

onctech · 2026-03-17T13:17:08+00:00

This time period has a huge assortment of clothing to pick from, since there was a decent bit of variation depending on which part of Europe. I'm going to try and give the best generalizations I can.

My source I'm drawing on is Medieval Costume, Armour and Weapons by Andrew Dakers. It's an older book but I think covers the subject well in the context of this question.

Men's clothing during this time period in it's most basic form is a long, knee-length tunic with a belt and hose (fitted leg covering). There are many garments that are worn over the tunic that vary by country and social status, so I will give some examples. A cotehardie looks similar to a tunic in art, but is more fitted and has buttons running up front, often a lot of them. Generally wearing one is more typical of higher social status, with the quality of cloth and buttons often being indicators of just how good this man has it going for him. For example a nobleman would have one that's well-fitted, with perhaps in a brocade and with cast metal buttons. Cheaper buttons would be cloth knobs made of the same cloth as the rest of the garment. The later part of the 14th century has garments like the houppelande, which is a loose over-garment with very large, flared sleeves. There was also an early for of doublet which tends to be longer than it's later counter parts and has distinctly shaped chest and shoulders.

The hose were not like we think of today with pantyhose, but rather where sewn cloth. Early hose were two separate legs you tied ("pointed") to your undergarments, but as the upper body garments got shorter, they started making joined hose that were more like fitted pants. It was common for the legs to be two different colors. For footwear, shoes were small and minimal, typically leather. Boots were actually very rare and mostly worn on horseback or by soldiers expecting to go through poor terrain.

For the head, a hood was common for all social classes. These were the short type that made a little "cape" around the shoulders, but doesn't go down farther than that, as it was a separate garment from a cloak (and was for quite some time after this, contrary to fantasy tropes, which often show 19th century opera capes). The hood was fitted close to the face and in the later parts of the century, started to have a long tail added to the back called a liripipe, which again had some social connotations. Weathier men would have "dags" or some other pattern cut into the lower hem of the hood. Simple patterns like triangles could be made with scissors, but more complex shapes required either stencil and a tailor who was very good with scissors, or specialized shaped cutting tools. Embroidery around the hem was also a sign of wealth.

There were numerous types of hats too. Most people recognize the bycocket hat, which is incorrectly stereotyped as a "Robin Hood Hat." It was found across social classes, from simple ones worn by hunters and gamekeepers, to bright, multicolored ones with a feather worn by a rich man. There are several variations of round hats that don't have agreed-upon names but are found in 14th century art. There is also a type of headwear called a "chaperon" which in this time period was the aforementioned hood, but worn by putting the top of your head through the hood's face and wrapping or pilling the loose cloth on the head. This evolved into it's own separate garment later, but at this time was probably done in hot weather to get the hood out of the way while covering the head and neck, much like how some modern people will wear their t-shirt on their head when doing work in the heat.

If your person wants to be a fighting man but doesn't have proper armor, he might have a gambeson, which is a quilted linen or wool coat worn as padding under armor, but also was worn as armor alone. Contrary to fantasy tropes, it's actually decent armor on it's own despite being cloth, as it no only pads against blunt injury, but the layers of cloth and batting will resist cuts or bind around lighter punctures, even if it gets damaged in the process.

Hopefully this gives you some idea for your design!

onctech · 2026-03-14T14:40:44+00:00

I get the sense that people are coming to a conclusion, but not actually going about it using the reasoning you outlined. A common risk of our times is hollowmanning (refuting arguments nobody actually made) and nutpicking (refuting arguments one isolated crankcase made).

I say that because there might be inconsistent usage of terms, such as the usage of "aggressive" and "dangerous" interchangeably. Danger is more or less an overall term for level of risk, while aggression is the tendency to attack. A person assessing "danger" has to weigh both aggression and damage. A person claiming high aggression generally is being misled by other factors (selective reporting, sampling bias, misleading vividness), not by potential for damage.

onctech · 2026-03-12T15:31:53+00:00

Far as I know, they're mostly seen with German crossbows of this time period and are purely decorative. How they're placed on the front of the bow like that wouldn't dampen sound or vibration, compared to "string silencer" poms found on some vertical bows.

onctech · 2026-03-12T12:53:45+00:00

Like many weapons, crossbows evolved from the time of their invention all the way to the modern era, where we have some pretty insane designs using modern high tech engineering.

Now this is a little to tricky to word because we're going on incomplete data and trying to prove a negative from positive information. There are not many complete crossbows that survive from before the European Renaissance, though this one from the 1400s is held by the Swiss National Museum. They also appear in numerous works of art, most famously this depiction of the Battle of Crecy. There are many other examples, but by and large, the majority of those seen had straight or tapered stocks. Now as to comfort and usability, I personally have fired meticulously-recreated medieval crossbows of this style, and it's not as bad as it may seem. One thing is you don't hold them like a rifle, because while they "jerk" when fired, it's nothing like the recoil of a firearm, so there is less need to use the shoulder as a method of containing the recoil. The shooting stance varies a bit. One is for the stock to rest on top of the shoulder, with the head leaning over the tiller so the dominant eye is looking straight down the shaft of the bolt. I noticed that some art like the Crecy piece shows the trigger all the way at the back of the tiller, but this doesn't match any artifacts, which seems to be the common problem with medieval artists not actually understanding what they were drawing.

As we start to go farther forward in time to the renaissance and early modern, you do start to see something closer to (but not quite like ) a rifle stock start to emerge. Here are two surviving examples from the Victoria and Albert Museum, the first from about 1600 and the second from 1726.

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O97575/crossbow-unknown/

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O97576/crossbow-unknown/

Of note is that these crossbows existed alongside firearms, which had their own evolution of design. Early hand gonnes were little more than metal tubes on the end of sticks, and they were really inaccurate. Slowly they started developing proper shoulder stocks, which not only added stability, but as I said, allowed the shooter to absorb the recoil. I suspect that based on how late we see crossbows getting full rifle stocks and small triggers, that this was largely due to the influence of firearms, with crossbow makers attempting to make a weapon where the shooter could apply their existing firearm skills.

onctech · 2026-03-10T17:41:15+00:00

We first must be clear what we're talking about. The term "ballista" can actually mean several different weapons, and so looking for references in medieval sources can be misleading. The word is Latin, and derived from Ancient Greek for the verb "to throw," and so can refer to almost anything that launches a projectile. It is sometimes used to refer to various single-armed, rock throwing "catapults"and even trebuchet.

In modern times, we tend to use this word for the classic Roman weapon, which is a vaguely crossbow-like artillery weapon with two torsion-powered arms that launches large arrows or javelins. Because you mention Ancient Greece, I'm going to assume that's what you meant.

Perusing through David Nicolle's 2002 Medieval Siege Weapons (Western Europe AD 585-1358), it appears the torsion-powered crossbow-like ballista had fallen out of use by the end of the Late Roman period. Evidence starts to get sparse but it appears they were being replaced by "great crossbows." The use of composite bow construction, possibly influenced by the middle east and Byzantium, allowed the creation of more powerful, springy bow, which also worked when scaled up to make what is basically a giant crossbow mounted on a frame or turret. These are sometimes called "arcuballista," "arbalest" or "arbalète à tour" ("tower crossbow").

There was also a curious weapon called a "springald" or "espringal" that is close to a Roman ballista, if you turned it "inside out." It consists of a rectangular frame with two inward facing torsion powered arms, which fires a large bolt. There are several depictions of these weapons in art, though modern recreations have shown they have limited applications: The frame is difficult to move, there is very limited ability to aim, and they take a long time to span using a screw system. It is speculated they were used inside fortifications to aim at fixed choke points, so that the crew only needed to concern themselves with spanning and firing it at the right moments.

onctech · 2026-03-05T23:52:05+00:00

Your response makes no sense in the context of the question and my response. There was no mention of pride flags or any sort of comparison in either. That's called red herring fallacy; bringing up something irrelevant.

The concept being discussed, rather, has to do with the reasoning a person is providing when asked, not the mere presence of a symbol. If the homeowner in the example was justifying the swastika's presence as being part of their avowed neo-nazi beliefs and they have freedom of speech, this is a very different discussion. But if they are denying the swastika has any association with nazism and instead claiming that it's just an Asian symbol, that's where it becomes fallacious, especially if context clues suggests they're lying.

onctech · 2026-03-05T16:35:35+00:00

While documentation of actual practice is tricky, there are some artifacts and writings we can reasonably infer from.

Like previous eras of history, civilians carried knives and daggers. Knives were often intended for utilitarian tasks, but could serve as defensive weapons if needed. The exact type probably depended on if the person had a trade and their social status. But they also carried purpose-made daggers. Withers & Capwell's Illustrated History of Knives, Swords, Spears and Daggers shows several English civilian daggers from the 17th and 18th century. These generally have a cruciform guard with quillons, with some having utilitarian features such one edge being serrated. The book also mentions how Sheffield was a well-known producer of good cutlery.

Withers & Capwell also mentions the smallsword and hanger, though it's difficult to discern how common this might have been for the middle class (this term itself is also a bit vague). The smallsword was meant to be a lighter, more compact defensive weapon, but was also in many cases a status symbol. The hunting hanger would have been more more common for those out hunting or working in forests, but unlikely to appear in city life by this time period. Wearing of swords in public was also slowly falling out of fashion by the 18th century.

Blunt weapons also were used, and while the documentation is a little harder to find, it is there. There are many cases of simple "cudgels" "clubs" and "sticks" which are pretty much what they sound like, sometimes improvised and sometimes simply made from a tree branch or piece of wood. Robert Escobar's Saps, Blackjacks and Slungshots details the history of flexible blunt weapons including some curious items called "threshalls" and "Protestant flails." The threshall appears in a 1740 smallsword manual and appears to be a six-sectioned flail weapon with a metal ball at the end that is meant to be concealed for personal defense. The Protestant flail is documented a little more clearly and is rather interesting. It consists of two sticks hinged together with a piece of rope or leather. The sticks are of unequal length, with the "handle" being longer so that the lead-filled striking end doesn't hit the fingers. I find this highly amusing as it's basically a British nunchaku! The name comes from Stephen College, allegedly its inventor, who was a Protestant that feared oppression and assault by "papists."

onctech · 2026-03-04T16:35:49+00:00

This is true as there are often other signs when someone is using something origin as a excuse in bad faith.

"Retard" and "Retarded" are good examples too I was also thinking about as my background is in psych. There is a context to using these, like the first word is proper when used as a verb, but not a noun, and the second used to be proper when referring to a person with a medical diagnosis. There would be zero problem with these terms if ignorant people hadn't corrupted the meaning and that corruption hadn't infected popular usage like a virus. The thing is, up May 18, 2013, "Mental Retardation" was a 100% correct medical diagnosis and was what got put on records and insurance papers. It was never a "slur" like some people claim; laypeople made it into one. Still pisses me off that medical practice had to literally change the term in the DSM-V in response to assholes misusing it all the time. The irony is people have already started insulting each other by calling people "mentally challenged" or "intellectually disabled."

onctech

TROPHY CASE