Talk:Kafkatrapping

Should it bother Aneris that we have an article on the author of this fallacy? Eric S. Raymond The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know him, but saw the device used often in all sorts of contexts. He's apparently the original source, so credit goes to him. I generally care only whether something is true. I have added the link to his article. Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen it outside references to his weird coinage. I'm not convinced there's any validity to it as a concept at all, at least beyond it being a pointless neologism for some kinds of bad faith argumentation. This article should probably be reduced to something like: "Kafkatrapping is a neologism coined by crank ESR to describe the following bad faith arguments: X, Y, Z". Or just mention the neologism on the most relevant logical fallacy article and turn this into a redirect. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The page seems okay to me. The fact that it's coined by a crank doesn't mean it's wrong ;-) And AFAIK ESR isn't exactly a crank either, more of someone who sits in the middle of "crank" and "sane"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

He was in the middle, now he's fully in 'old man yells at cloud' territory. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Very good demonstration of what I was looking for. It morphed into a complete bogus article of no use, and was weaponized against The Evil Other, like every SJ article. Great job. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just doing The Faction's dark work. Can I get my jackboots now? Typhoon (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Great butchering of an article

It seems this has devolved in an ad hominem attack on Eric S. Raymond. Great work people. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called the wiki magic~. ;-) Typhoon (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither version had anything useful that wasn't in tone argument, so to there it goes - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because this was Raymond taking existing fallacies and butchering them to apply only to a narrow group of people. Typhoon (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same style of thinking that leads to trying to make "motte and bailey" a thing - "here's a really old concept, but phrased so as to make me the good guy!" - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)