In this article I’ll expose seven linguistic tricks people use to deceive you:

Let’s begin:

Kafka trap

The Kafka trap might also be called the SJW trap.

Author Eric Raymond coined the term Kafkatrapping in his 2010 article in which he presented a style of argument that is common today with SJW’s, but has it’s origins in The Trial a book written in 1915 by Franz Kafka.

In The Trial the protagonist is arrested and accused of serious crimes which are never specified. He receives no explanation or description of the charges, and his refusal to acknowledge that he must be guilty is what makes him guilty. The only way to stop his abuse is to admit that he is guilty.

What is the kafka trap?

In the kafka trap you are accused of being a:

Racist

Sexist

Bigot

Facist

Homophobic

Transphobic

Islamophobic

Misogynist

Nazi

Hitler

etc.

…and any attempt to argue, deny or defend yourself is seen as proof of guilt.

Yep.

Denial is proof of guilt.

You’re guilty until proven innocent.

Any accusation of guilt is all that is needed to condemn you.

Eric Raymond laid out various models of kafkatraps in his 2010 article which I’ll share here.

Note: Kafkatrapping can be used against any perceived “ist” or “ism” (racism, sexism, homophobia etc.) however I’ll simply use the word racism here in the interests of space.

Model A

“Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of racism, confirms that you are guilty of racism”

Model C

“Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of racism, you are guilty because you have benefited from the racist behavior of others in the system”

Model D

“The act of demanding a definition of racism that can be consequentially checked and falsified proves you are racist”

Model L

“Your insistence on applying rational skepticism in evaluating assertions of pervasive racism itself demonstrates that you are racist”

Model M

“The act of arguing against the theory of anti-racism demonstrates that you are either racist, or do not understand the theory of anti-racism, and your argument can therefore be dismissed as either corrupt or incompetent”

Model P

“Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of racism, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the racist system”

Model S

“Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of racism, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt”

Model T

“Designated victims of racism who question any part of the theory of racism demonstrate by doing so that they are not authentic members of the victim class, so their experience can be discounted and their thoughts dismissed as internalized racism”

Men’s rights activist Adam Kostakis has defined a ninth model of the kafka trap, Model J:

Model J

“Even if your innocence is proven in a court of law, this not only confirms your guilt; it also confirms the guilt of the legal system that found you innocent”

In summary:

“You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.” – Wendy McElroy

Just accept the ‘facts’:

All white people are racist

It’s impossible for a black person to be racist

“Believe women” – or you’re a rape apologist

Gender is a social construct

There are no biological differences between men and women

You have white privilege – regardless of your circumstances

“All lives matter” – is hate speech

“Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable. Notably, if the model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people: (a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and (b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime. No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!” – Eric Raymond

How to deal with a kafka trap

If presented with a kafka trap don’t try to argue or deny it because your words will be twisted and used against you.

In fact, any attempt to argue, deny or defend yourself will be seen as proof of guilt, and SJW’s and trolls might say things like:

“Deny, Deny, Deny”

“There’s no smoke without fire”

“Me thinks thou dost protest too much”

My advice: Ignore it, and if possible put the shoe on the other foot and reverse the accusation. See how they like it.

“The kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged” – Eric Raymond

Proof by verbosity (aka “proof by intimidation”)

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit” – W.C. Fields

Proof by verbosity (aka “proof by intimidation”) is an argument that is so convoluted, jargon-laden and unintelligible, that the audience is simply forced to accept it, or admit their ignorance, and the fact they can’t follow it and don’t understand it.

This style of argumentation is often used by experts, or at least wannabe experts with a good vocabulary. It’s purposely making the argument difficult to understand by filling it with big words and technical jargon in an effort to intimidate people into accepting it, and no one can argue with you because they don’t understand your answers or what you’re really saying.

Chris Langan is probably the best example of proof by verbosity (I’m not attacking Chris I like him) here is an example from his CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe)

“In the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory. SCSPL, which stands for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, is just a totally intrinsic, i.e. completely self-contained, language that is comprehensively and coherently (self-distributively) self-descriptive, and can thus be model-theoretically identified as its own universe or referent domain. Theory and object go by the same name because unlike conventional ZF or NBG set theory, SCSPL hologically infuses sets and their elements with the distributed (syntactic, metalogical) component of the theoretical framework containing and governing them, namely SCSPL syntax itself, replacing ordinary set-theoretic objects with SCSPL syntactic operators.”

How to deal with proof by verbosity

If someone presents you with an argument you can’t understand, potentially a proof by verbosity, ask them to simplify it and explain it to you in a way that a 5-year-old could understand.

If you are unsure if an argument is an attempted proof by verbosity ask yourself:

Is this argument designed to be understood?

or

Is it designed to be confusing and unintelligible?

See also:

Hoare’s dictum

“This dictum is named after computer scientist C.A.R. Hoare, who said, “There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors.”

This applies to logical arguments as well: you can make the argument so simple that there are obviously no errors. Or you can make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors.” – Religionswiki

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop is a style of argumentation in which someone asserts as many different half-truths and falsehoods into as short of a timespan as possible, rapid fire machine gun style, knowing that their opponent has no real chance of debunking and refuting every single point presented in the limited time given.

The Gish Gallop is about the quantity, not the quality of arguments, it’s about overwhelming people with as many falsehoods and fallacies in the limited time available. It is named after Duane Gish the young Earth creationist who employed it.

Many Gish Gallop arguments attack straw men and refute points no one made, and are often full of PRATT’s (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) but that doesn’t stop intellectually dishonest debaters from presenting them as if they were sound and valid arguments however.

The Gish Gallop is frequently seen in online listicles and YouTube videos: “101 reasons why X” (However upon closer inspection, you may discover that each of the points made are weak or invalid and lack evidence and quickly fall apart upon scrutiny)

Why the Gish Gallop is difficult to deal with

The Gish Gallop debating style seems impressive to the audience, simply because there seems to be so much evidence on your side (seemingly much more than your opponent has)

It puts the opponent on the back foot because they either have to spend all of their time addressing the many fallacious arguments presented, or ignore them and make their own case, in which case you can accuse them of lacking counterarguments, being unable to refute your points etc.

It takes longer to unpack and refute a fallacy or falsehood than it does to assert it, and it’s impossible for your opponent to counter and refute every point made in the limited amount of time allowed in a debate (In a debate an opponent might only have twelve minutes to refute 25+ falsehoods presented, an impossible task)

Even if you counter some of the Gish Gallopers arguments they can say, “Yes, but what about…” (insert the 20+ untouched arguments you haven’t had time to address)

To the uneducated or uninformed audience member unfamiliar with the arguments, it takes time to fact-check, debunk, refute etc. the Gish Gallopers points and most people are too intellectually lazy to put in the effort

On the spot fallacy

The Gish Galloper can also employ the on the spot fallacy:

“The on the spot fallacy (OTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss anything related to it (and, at that, an expert with flawless memory)” – RationalWiki

How to counter the Gish Gallop

In a debate setting I recommend addressing the audience first and alerting them to the Gish Gallop technique, and to the fact that you simply don’t have time to respond to every single argument. You may only have 12 minutes in your rebuttal.

You can try to refute every single point made by a Gish Galloper online if you have the desire, time and energy. Otherwise you can select their best points for rebuttal, or the overall theme of their argument and try to counter those.

Doublespeak