No Stupid Questions

I have never seen an online discussion where gaslighting was used. People usually just learned the term and they think it's a synonym for lying.

Online debate is a waste of time. You can somewhat short-circuit the bad-faith stuff by arguing values instead of facts or policy.

For example, if you say that the State has no right to remove trans kids from their parents, you've made a legal argument that's vulnerable to all the bad faith and you may even be technically wrong. However if you argue that you trust parents to decide what's best over the State, there is nothing to argue about. Bonus, you might actually get some real talk out of reactionaries.

Appeal to Fallacy.

It might not be a fallacy.

A fallacy doesn't make an argument wrong.

There are degrees of fallacies.

Claiming a statement is wrong because there might be a fallacy is a thought-ending argument. There's more nuance and relatability in rhetoric. Refusing to engage because someone's using a fallacy is reasonable, but calling it by name isn't a magic spell that forces someone to throw in the towel.

False dichotomy - Assuming that because someone doesn’t agree with one viewpoint, they must fully support the opposite. Framing the issue as if there are only two mutually exclusive positions, when in fact there may be many shades in between.
Strawmanning - Misrepresenting someone’s argument - usually by exaggerating, distorting, or taking it out of context - so it’s easier to attack or refute.
Ad hominem - Attacking the character, motives, or other traits of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Reductionism - The tendency to reduce every complex issue to a single cause - like blaming everything on capitalism, fascism, patriarchy, etc. - while ignoring other contributing factors.
Moving the goalposts - Changing the criteria of an argument or shifting its focus once the original point has been addressed or challenged - usually to avoid conceding.
Hasty generalizations - Treating entire groups as if they’re uniform, attributing a trait or behavior of some individuals to all members of that group.
Oversimplification - Ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in most issues, reducing them to overly simple terms or black-and-white thinking.

I think the most common thing I see online and offline is constantly adding more sources to the discussion to the point that the other person feels they can’t know anything. My grandmother does this with her nonsense and pseudo-intellectual books. Just because I haven’t read “why inner city black people have guns 3” doesn’t mean I can’t not be a racist.

Cherry picking is probably one of the most egregious

You can make a university-level essay on a subject, and people will identify one tiny irrelevant detail they disagree with and ignore the overall point

Moving the goalposts.

Butwhatabout.

Appeal to hypocrisy is big.

What do you call someone who is convinced you are something you aren't, based on only a couple words in a comment on a post, draws wild assumptions from that and no actual knowledge and demands you prove them wrong otherwise, they think, they win? Like I'm going to give you my resume to prove I'm not what you think I am? Nope

Here's a handy guide to help.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Asking the same question over and over for years...

Then just JAGing off (just asking questions) till the other person gets tired of explaining.

Like, if people want to insist on rehashing something from over a decade ago despite it being settled history at this point.

They don't want to actually discuss it, they have an opinion they agree with, and want to scream at someone for valuing facts more than their opinion

Mort and Bailey, when they'll have a weak argument and a much stronger argument, they get you to attack the weak argument, and then they retreat to the stronger, more limited argument.

Flooding the zone (which now that I think about it is close enough to gish-galloping for there not to be much of a distinction), whataboutism, and moving the goalposts are all extremely common.

Whataboutism and moving the goalposts are the ones I see most often.

There's some good examples and discussion here https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ

Here is a great piece someone put together a while ago which goes through many of the techniques bad actors use.

Whataboutism

Using a wedge issue as a universal bludgeon to attack anyone that disagrees with them.

Not sure what technique that's called. Concern troll, possibly?

Also, vote manipulation. Basically they spin up a bunch of alts across different instances and boost/demote posts and comments in an attempt to steer discourse toward their agenda.