I can’t stress enough that your own source says that a Kafka trap is when someone saying “I’m not X” is used as evidence that they are in fact X.
Stressing something untrue doesn’t make it true.
Here’s the definition again.
A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x.
Note the keyword if: this definition concerns a conditional statement.
A Kafka trap is an argument that has or assumes as premise the conditional statement if someone denies being x, then that person is x: in other words, it is undeniable that person is x.
Per definition, the argument doesn’t require your extra premise someone denies being x.[1]
The arguments you deny fit the Kafka trap assume these premises.
It is undeniable an objector to the policy either hates non-binary gender identities or is secretly non-binary.
It is undeniable an objector to the policy is racist.
Asserting the conditional statement doesn’t require asserting the antecedent.
What if they are x?
Conclusion trivially follows.
If they aren’t, then they’ll deny.
Neither possibility asserted?
Doesn’t matter, because conditional statement is asserted: all possibilities lead to same conclusion.
That’s the fallacy.
Consider the conditional statement: if the moon is made of cheese, then we can eat it.
Is it true?
Yes.
Is the moon made of cheese?
No.
The reason you aren’t getting through to people is because you’re violating the maxim of manner. Your erudite and verbose loquaciousness obfuscates the intended meaning of your statements. Speak clearly and concisely.
You’re exceptionally bad at explaining things, but I do get it now. Let me compress your 500 page novel into a single sentence: A Kafka trap is a situation in which someone has already been accused of being x, and then their denial of being x is taken as further evidence that they are in fact x. Let’s see if this far better definition applies to this thread.
Yeah what the hell is this comment section? What a way to out yourselves as assholes by acting like this comic is personally attacking you
And
When this kinda comic triggers you so hard its super telling for everyone else.
Oh wow, it doesn’t. At what point did they use someone’s assertion that they aren’t [the kind of person in this comic] as evidence that they are [the kind of person in this comic]? Their accusation was entirely based on people assuming the comic was about them. And yeah, if you assume this comic about a guy acting like a douchebag is about you, then what else are we supposed to assume? A guy that doesn’t act like a douchebag shouldn’t assume that this comic is about him.
The reason you aren’t getting through to people is because you’re violating the maxim of manner.
Failing to comprehend plain, direct language calling things by their proper names is a skill issue.
I do get it now
A Kafka trap is a situation in which someone has already been accused of being x, and then their denial of being x is taken as further evidence that they are in fact x.
Nope.
A Kafka trap is an argument that assumes a premise of the form “if someone denies an assertion (about themselves), then that assertion is true”.
Only that conditional statement is needed.
That assumption implies the assertion is true no matter what.
The commenter observed criticism of the comic and decided they’re the kind of person the comic criticizes.
How?
They assume it’s undeniable that a critic of the comic is the kind of person the comic criticizes.
Even if a critic of the comic denies it, they are the kind of person the comic criticizes.
That’s the essential assumption of the Kafka trap fallacy: no extra premises are needed.
if you assume this comic about a guy acting like a douchebag is about you
The commenter (and now you) are making this wild assumption, not the critics who are merely criticizing the flaws.
A Kafka trap is an argument that assumes a premise of the form “if someone denies an assertion (about themselves), then that assertion is true”.
Only that conditional statement is needed.
That assumption implies the assertion is true no matter what.
Okay, so you’re doubling down on the definition that super doesn’t apply to the examples on the wiki page, nor any of the comments in this thread.
Stressing something untrue doesn’t make it true. Here’s the definition again.
Note the keyword if: this definition concerns a conditional statement. A Kafka trap is an argument that has or assumes as premise the conditional statement if someone denies being x, then that person is x: in other words, it is undeniable that person is x. Per definition, the argument doesn’t require your extra premise someone denies being x.[1]
The arguments you deny fit the Kafka trap assume these premises.
Asserting the conditional statement doesn’t require asserting the antecedent. What if they are x? Conclusion trivially follows. If they aren’t, then they’ll deny. Neither possibility asserted? Doesn’t matter, because conditional statement is asserted: all possibilities lead to same conclusion. That’s the fallacy.
Consider the conditional statement: if the moon is made of cheese, then we can eat it. Is it true? Yes. Is the moon made of cheese? No.
(Re)learn logic. ↩︎
The reason you aren’t getting through to people is because you’re violating the maxim of manner. Your erudite and verbose loquaciousness obfuscates the intended meaning of your statements. Speak clearly and concisely.
You’re exceptionally bad at explaining things, but I do get it now. Let me compress your 500 page novel into a single sentence: A Kafka trap is a situation in which someone has already been accused of being x, and then their denial of being x is taken as further evidence that they are in fact x. Let’s see if this far better definition applies to this thread.
And
Oh wow, it doesn’t. At what point did they use someone’s assertion that they aren’t [the kind of person in this comic] as evidence that they are [the kind of person in this comic]? Their accusation was entirely based on people assuming the comic was about them. And yeah, if you assume this comic about a guy acting like a douchebag is about you, then what else are we supposed to assume? A guy that doesn’t act like a douchebag shouldn’t assume that this comic is about him.
Failing to comprehend plain, direct language calling things by their proper names is a skill issue.
Nope. A Kafka trap is an argument that assumes a premise of the form “if someone denies an assertion (about themselves), then that assertion is true”. Only that conditional statement is needed. That assumption implies the assertion is true no matter what.
The commenter observed criticism of the comic and decided they’re the kind of person the comic criticizes. How? They assume it’s undeniable that a critic of the comic is the kind of person the comic criticizes. Even if a critic of the comic denies it, they are the kind of person the comic criticizes. That’s the essential assumption of the Kafka trap fallacy: no extra premises are needed.
The commenter (and now you) are making this wild assumption, not the critics who are merely criticizing the flaws.
Okay, so you’re doubling down on the definition that super doesn’t apply to the examples on the wiki page, nor any of the comments in this thread.
You’re a deeply unserious person. Get a life