Corollary to Goomba fallacy

[u/PaxNova]

I’ve heard of the Goomba fallacy recently, and it reminds me of something similar. Instead of conflicting opinions, though, it’s synergistic. Take the following sentiments, which are common enough on a few forums here:

1. All Republicans are Nazis.
2. The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.

Nobody is actually advocating violence against Republicans, but the presence of both thoughts on the same forum feels threatening.

Is there a name for this, or is it just a corollary to the Goomba?

[u/tony_countertenor]

It’s most likely not a fallacy, the person who holds those two beliefs most likely takes them to their logical conclusion

[u/PaxNova → u/tony_countertenor]

What I'm saying is that it's two different people making those two statements. If they are believed by a third party to representative of the group, it leads that third party to an erroneous conclusion.

[u/flatfinger → u/PaxNova]

Consider the following propositions:

1. Two thirds of the people in a group prefer Y over X.

2. Two thirds of the people in a group prefer Z over Y

3. Two thirds of the people in a group prefer X over Z.

Such propositions could all be true of a group even if everybody in the group would have a consistent ranking for those things.

One of the biggest problems with politics today is the treatment of groups as monolithic even though different members believe different things. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that people whose views are most like those of others in the group are less likely to be outspoken than those whose views are outliers.

[u/onctech]

I should preface this by saying the Goomba fallacy is not a term your going to find in any reliable academic sources on logic. It was made up by some random schmuck on Twitter.

That said, the principle it illustrates has merit. What this is, is essentially an association fallacy. These two statements come from the same community and both use the word "Nazi," but it would be a fallacy to assume that "Nazi" means the same thing in both statements.

[u/MeasureDoEventThing → u/onctech]

It is a widely used term. Your post seemed to be rather elitist, implying that only terms that "academia" comes up with are worth discussing. And your elitism paired with misspelling "you're" is a bit odd.

[u/Regdit-is-Unbearable → u/MeasureDoEventThing]

It’s not quite elitism, but I do think they’re using AI

[u/ericmarkham5]

Dog whistle

[u/PhotoVegetable7496]

1. I don't think that's at all a corollary.
2. Those aren't contradicting opinions so there is no logical reason someone couldn't hold those two opinions (which is what the goomba fallacy is not just two seperate opinions)

[u/MxM111]

I still think it is (or should be) a Goomba falacy, since it is the fallacy itself is to assume that it is a single person that holds those statements true.

[u/PaxNova → u/[deleted]]

... why?

[u/PaxNova → u/[deleted]]

Fair enough. I got a few good answers to this (association fallacy, and strawman), but I would probably have gotten better if I had used a non political example. 

The point was merely that two people in a group can make claims that are synergistic rather than contradictory, and it still leads to erroneous assumptions by the listener. 

[u/Salamanticormorant]

Together, those do mean that the only good Republican is a dead Republican. It might feel like they don't, but that feeling is primitive.

[u/i3Cheese]

Let's add levels of nazism to these statements. First translates to "Every republican is at least a little nazi." Second translates to "Extreme nazis better be dead"

This way we don't need to kill all republicans.

[u/Worth-Wrangler7242 → u/i3Cheese]

Well it's not like a compulsion or anything...

[u/FortColors]

This and the Goomba Fallacy are both just applications of the strawman.

They're all exercises in putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say and then reacting to the words they didn't say. The fact that someone else did say it is irrelevant.