r/fallacy

The central deficiency in your criticism lies in its apparent conflation of argumentative validity with rhetorical accessibility. at no point did i posit that an audience's unwillingness to engage automatically constitutes a logical fallacy; rather, the contention concerns whether the rejection of an argument's stylistic formulation provides sufficient grounds to discredit its underlying proposition. these are epistemically distinct evaluative dimensions, and their indiscriminate conflation introduces a categorical imprecision that your objection has yet to adequately resolve.

Your assertion that an argument becomes ineffective when nobody is willing to read it addresses its communicative efficacy, not its inferential validity. an argument may be rhetorically counterproductive without being logically unsound, just as a theoretically defensible proposition may be obscured by unnecessarily convoluted diction. consequently, communicative accessibility and inferential soundness cannot be treated as interchangeable criteria without collapsing the distinction between an argument's capacity to convey meaning and the logical relations that substantiate its conclusion. the former concerns rhetorical transmission and audience reception; the latter concerns premise-conclusion coherence, inferential legitimacy, and evidentiary sufficiency.

Moreover, i acknowledge that no individual is under any obligation to engage with an argument, nor does every adverse reaction constitute a fallacious inference. the distinction is considerably narrower: disengagement establishes a preference regarding communicative presentation, but it does not independently demonstrate a structural defect in the argument itself. likewise, characterizing a formulation as pretentious may constitute a legitimate stylistic assessment, yet such an assessment remains insufficient to establish semantic incoherence, inferential invalidity, or conceptual vacuity. a criticism of presentation and a refutation of substance operate at different analytical levels.

The irony, therefore, lies in your apparent recognition of the distinction between subjective reception and substantive engagement, followed by an inference that risks treating rhetorical ineffectiveness as dispositive of argumentative merit. such a conclusion requires an additional justificatory premise that you have not yet established. failure to persuade is not logically synonymous with failure to reason, just as diminished accessibility does not independently entail epistemic invalidity. unless you can demonstrate how the stylistic deficiency produces a corresponding defect in the proposition's inferential structure, your criticism remains pertinent to communicative efficacy but underdetermined as a refutation of argumentative validity.

if you don't know the goomba fallacy is something commonly referred to in internet arguments (mostly on twitter from what i've seen) where someone acts like a community or group is a single person that has contradictory opinions and uses that in their argument. would this fall into something like hasty overgeneralization? would it have a seperate name? is it just the goomba fallacy and is never really referred to formally?

"Omg! That was a funnel and not a speaker?!"