[pdog]

The sheer number of rhetorical fallacies employed in the opening of this "takedown" inclines me to believe that Hersh's reporting is a largely accurate and truthful account.

For example, stating that you could write "an entire post on the reasons why sounds entirely made up by someone with no real grasp of what that suggestion would actually technically entail" is a clear-cut appeal to ridicule[1] fallacy with no further elaboration.

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

[billjings]

"The criticism is bad, therefore the claim must be true" certainly sounds like a rhetorical fallacy to me. Does it have a name?

[raphlinus]

It's an instance of "argument from fallacy." This whole comment section is like a zoo of logical fallacies, with golden oldies such as ad hominem (both sides), false equivalence, and of course both-siderism well represented.

[waffleiron]

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

[Tycho]

It’s a good heuristic.

[billjings]

It's dangerous to apply heuristics in political discourse without the inclusion of the element of reputation. Otherwise, you're vulnerable to adversarial techniques that flood the zone with garbage information.

This kind of thing was everywhere in the Trump era: whether you were on the right or the left, you could easily navigate yourself into a space where all of your critics were random people who were obviously completely unhinged. They don't actually tell you that your position is all that great in any strict logical sense, but they certainly are emotionally affirming!