User:Yukabacera/Reasons to dismiss an argument out of hand

In a perfect world, we might be able to give every idea full consideration, to fully examine (and, if neccessary, formally disprove) every argument put forth. In the world we have to actually live in, though, time is finite. The following is a non-exhaustive list of signs that an argument can be dismissed out of hand, without further consideration:

1. The author makes up their own words (or definitions) when perfectly serviceable terms already exist. Sometimes, you do need to make up words because you're the first one to talk about a specific topic, or because existing terms have become tainted, or something. Most of the time, though, the author is just attempting a semantic sleight-of-hand - carefully choosing and picking their definitions so that they can prove something, and then tricking you into believing that said thing is true even if you use more mainstream definitions. Most proofs of God rely on this, as does proving that abortion is murder and that taxation is theft. Compare "the worst argument in the world".
2. The author mentions that they will be banned (or that their comment will not be accepted, or that their post will be deleted) more than once. Sometimes, people really do speak truth to power, and get banned for it (see: Conservapedia). More likely, though, the author is just posing at a Lone Brave Truth-Teller and is either saying something non-controversial ("I still think murder is bad, unlike you soft-on-crime liberals!") or non-sensical ("God does exist because the Bible says so, fools!").
3. The author presumes that any exposure to their argument automatically creates converts. This means that the author is either a) so convinced they're right that it's blindingly obvious, that b) their words are supernaturally convincing, or that c) everyone already knows they're right and they just need a little reminder. In any case, the author has disappeared so far up their own ass that none of their observations are relevant to the outside world. Examples: Most missionaries, whether secular or religious, and those fucking people who choose "GoogleRonPaul" as their nicknames.
4. The author constantly repeats the same arguments with little variation, and keeps going back to the same issues. Sometimes, repetition is important to get a point across. Most of the time, the author is just bloviating.
5. The author claims everything is part of some grand strategy, or pretends to have such a strategy, or makes broad and sweeping statements about trends and steady progress without providing data. You know how some people claim they were trolling when you point out how stupid their arguments are? Same thing. Note - some people say their opponents have a grand strategy. ("The black helicopters were planning to fetch me, but they didn't so I'd look like a fool!") They are also wrong.
6. The author unironically uses two or more different snarl words to refer to the same person, group, or object. Examples would be calling Barack Obama both "Obozo" and "Obomber" in the same text, or referring to both "Feminazis" and the "Femstapo". If this shows up, the author probably hates the recipient of the snarls so hard that they're incapable of stringing a coherent argument together. This also covers mashing snarl terms together, like combining "Religious Reich" and "KKKristian" to arrive at "KKKristian ReiKKK". Personal favourite: "$hrub the Lesser". Ten points if you can guess whom that refers to.
7. The author keeps pointing at or referring to the same incredibly long text whenever asked for or challenged on something. Maybe the answer really is in there! Or maybe they just know that nobody is going to read five thousand pages of John Galt talking about railroads, and are hoping to use this as an escape hatch. Variants: "Just read the sequences", "it's in the Bible", or "Mencius Moldbug wrote about this". Why yes, he probably did, but that's because he uses ten thousand words and five meandering anecdotes when one sentence will do. Note: If they can point to a specific section, this doesn't apply.
8. The author dismisses existing thought out of hand. ... well, okay, this does contradict the above item if you phrase it that strongly. What I mean is: If you're not even going to familiarize yourself with counter-arguments, and existing arguments in general, you're an ass. Debate about the resurrection of Jesus has been going on for almost two thousand years, you're not going to finally disprove it by making a list on a wiki. It just doesn't sound as snappy if you put it this way.
9. The author tries to blend everything they dislike and/or disagree with into a slurry of hatred. This attitude could be summed up as "There's people like me, and there are people who are wrong." Trying to prove that everyone you oppose is really the same person (part of the Cisheteropatriarchy, or the Cathedral, or whatever) usually means you don't really understand the issue. This is only ever okay if the two terms are direct antonyms, like "atheist" vs. "theist".
10. The author presumes that a consistent philosophy exists in those they speak to or for. Most people work on the basis of a semi-unconscious half-assed version of Utilitarianism, with a few ad hoc justifications added so they can dodge the various repugnant conclusions that leads to. Those people who don't adhere to this kind of philosophy are fundamentalists of some sort. Sure, you can construct coherent ethical systems if you try, but nobody actually adheres to one. I'm looking at you here, LessWrong.
11. The author cites themselves more than twice per article. That's just intellectual masturbation.
12. The author constantly repeats the same arguments with little variation, and keeps going back to the same issues. Sometimes, repetition is important to get a point across. Most of the time, the author is just bloviating.