> Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I'm talking about situations where no fallacy has actually occurred, not situations where a fallacy has occurred but a correct conclusion has been arrived at anyway.

That’d be a form of equivocation: the accuser is using an incorrect definition of the fallacy, instead of the true one.

I see what you mean. Just because you’re saying a person has a bad history doesn’t mean your committing an “ad hominem”. That seems different.

So what does any fallacy tell me then? Especially the fallacy fallacy? If it does invalidate the invalidation of fallacies it is in itself untrue...bz...recursion error..bz stack overflow

It's unironically called the fallacy fallacy.