- Haw haw haw.
- That’s simply absurd.
- Nobody believes that anymore.
- Unfortunately, your second premise is false or at least highly questionable. You seem to have an unstated premise that is in need of defense. And your entire position leads to a reductio ad absurdum. Allow me to explain…
It’s amazing how many rebuttals, especially within the realm of social media, are in the space of 1-3. Laughs, guffaws, and other insults are the worst (tier 1).
Categorical undefended assertions that the other person’s view is false, indefensible, or absurd (tier 2) are only slightly better: at least one has communicated in sentences and clearly expressed one’s personal incredulity.
Assertions that the position is indefensible by way of a force majeure (tier 3) is not, as you might think, always based on the fallacious argumentum ad populum. After all, there are legitimate cases in which the consensus of a relevant field of individuals can be significant prima facie evidence. Thus, for example, pointing out the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines is indeed relevant in adjudicating which position is most likely true. So tier 3 does potentially constitute an objection with at least some veridical force. But until more is said to fill in the blanks on the alleged consensus, it remains very weak.
And this brings us, finally, to tier 4 in which you analyze the person’s argument, perhaps even drawing out implicit premises, and demonstrating where there is a lack of required supporting evidence or vulnerability to rebuttal.
The lesson? If you want to join the elites on tier 4, you’ll need to table the snickers and focus on analysis and critique.