> This seems to capture the current intellectual zeitgeist very well. Once we name something, we can dismiss it without engaging it.

In the internet age, this is a necessity because the other pattern is the same claims repeated over and over again with the expectation that a comprehensive rebuttal must be provided each time. At some point you have to name the thing so it can be added as an entry to Wikipedia and move on. See also: how global warming denialists have an evergreen grab bag of false claims to pull from and expect a thesis-length answer to each one.

Also, this is nothing new. Commonly referenced fallacies like tu quoque are a way of saying that the other person is arguing from shaky ground, and their argument does not need a complete rebuttal until they refine it a bit. In fact, the comment I was replying to can be considered a derivative of the just-world fallacy[1], substituting the hand of the free market for the kind of ephemeral karma that the original just-world fallacy implies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Your arguments are examples of the false equivalence fallacy. [1] Sorry but I don't have time to provide any more comprehensive of a rebuttal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

(This is why I don't think labeling is a rebuttal.)

I mean, I see what you're doing here, haha, but AlexanderB brings up a good point about asymmetrical debate, where one side says something sloppy, vague and poorly sourced and then expects you to "write a thesis" to rebut. Personally, I think this phenomena really does need a name, less to dismiss it, more to get lazy arguers to stop demanding high quality rebuttals (and at the very least to make the debate easier to walk away from). Fundamentally it's a kind of hypocrisy, but it needs a lyrical name. I like the pattern of naming a fallacy and then opting out that you're demonstrating, but a name could actually be useful. Indeed you could even term it a fallacy, the "vice demanding virtue" fallacy, or something like that.

> ...and at the very least to make the debate easier to walk away from...

I find simply reminding myself that duty doesn't actually call[0] to be a very easy way to walk away from any debate that isn't going anywhere productive

[0] https://xkcd.com/386/

People aren’t understanding what you’re doing, apparently. But I appreciate it.

If you are going this way, someone could very well "adjectivize" your comment with the label "fallacy of fallacies" it fits very well: The fact that the comment you criticize uses a fallacy, doesn't make that comment wrong! Duckduckgo that! edit: ok, i saw now Haberman has already provided a even better explanation about your superficial use of the word "fallacy" in your argument. Check his link, and learn something.

> I was going to read the rest of your comment, but I decided it was "Jacobin whinging" so I realized I didn't have to.

But the rest of the comment supports the first part, which you seem to agree with.

Plus, "Jacobin whinging", seriously? Advocating for a living wage is "Jacobin" now?

I regret that my point may not have come across. I don't actually believe in pejoratively labeling any good-faith argument, and I would not actually use a label like "Jacobin whinging" in earnest. My point is: labeling something is not the same as refuting it.

Apologies, my irony meter is malfunctioning today. I read it twice but I'm so used to reading this serious comments similar to your sarcastic critique online these days, it didn't read as sarcasm.

I like to say, the best thing about the Internet is the reasonable debate, and the accurate detection of sarcasm.

You have an absolutely terrible assessment of the Internet.

Oh the irony :)

You know, I built an irony detector once...but it detected everything BUT irony.