The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy

I noticed another common logical fallacy. "Some clueless fool is disagreeing with me and debating me loudly. What should I do? I can't convince him; therefore my argument must be wrong!" By now, I have enough confidence in my reasoning ability to not be distracted by clueless fools. I need to think of a good name for this logical fallacy. How about "The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy"?

The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy is a serious problem. I'm convinced that the government frequently plants spies in citizen activist groups. The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy enables these government-planted spies to do considerable damage. By being loud and unconvinceable advocates for a specific viewpoint, they are able to reign in those with different viewpoints. The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy, combined with The Strawman Fallacy, prevents marginal ideas from being discussed.

I've heard reports of school board meetings and town hall meetings where a certain issue is being debated. A few people loudly acting out The Stubborn Clueless Fool Fallacy can effectively silence all opposition.

It is well known that the government plants spies in citizen activist groups. It isn't too hard to also plant spies in online discussion forums. In fact, it's very easy to do that on the Internet, because one person can pretend to be hundreds of people. Now, when I see someone acting like a Stubborn Clueless Fool, I always consider two possibilities. First, the person might be a spy planted to quash debate. Second, the person might truly be a stubborn clueless fool. It's impossible to be sure, but the possibility of sabotage is worth considering. In most instances, the person probably really is clueless rather than being a spy. In either case, once I've identified that someone is a Stubborn Clueless Fool, I'm not interested in wasting time on him.

It doesn't need to be a government spy. For example, drug company PR reps infiltrate online discussion forums dedicated to drugs. It is already well-known that corporations edit their own Wikipedia articles. However, even that investigation was incomplete. If you are logged into Wikipedia as a registered user, your IP is hidden from everyone except site admins. The Wikiscanner program only catches anonymous edits by unregistered users. If you log into Wikipedia as a registered user, your IP address is hidden and your anonymity is protected. If the PR representatives for a corporation are smart enough to log in as registered users, then their anonymity is protected. Futher, some PR representatives, though diligent effort, can get themselves promoted to site admins.

Of course, many people are sufficiently brainwashed that they'll play the part of stubborn clueless fool without further prodding. Stubborn clueless fools on TV are incredibly effective. It is only necessary to place of few stubborn clueless fools in select locations to prevent logical debate. Stubborn clueless fools tend to be the loudest advocates of The Strawman Fallacy.

Many people think that acting like a stubborn clueless fool is a desirable characteristic. It's bad to learn something. Some people say that science is the only area where people openly admit mistakes. People learn to act like a stubborn clueless fool based on the example they see on TV and by politicians. A politician who changes his viewpoint and admits he learned something is called a "flip-flopper".

Whenever you encounter a stubborn clueless fool, you need to make sure they don't shatter your self-confidence. When I see I stubborn clueless fool, I always consider the possibility that he is someone deliberately planted to spread misinformation and prevent debate.

Of course, you could take the contrary position and say that I am now a stubborn clueless fool, advocating for the idea that all governments are evil and need to be eliminated. On the other hand, I think I have enough logical reasons for my viewpoints. I feel completely and totally betrayed by the current economic and political system. The defects in the monetary system, taxation system, voting system, and government regulations are painfully obvious. Legally, I have no recourse under the current economic and political system. At this point, it's painfully obvious to me that the people who disagree are thoroughly brainwashed. How could someone who understands the Compound Interest Paradox say that the Federal Reserve is not evil? Unfortunately, it won't be possible to eliminate the Federal Reserve without also eliminating the US government. The people who think they control the US government are too stupid to see what's going to happen. They had their chances to fix the current economic and political system, and failed. The only fair solution is to start over with a new economic and political system.

If you disagree with me, why are you wasting time reading this?