Griefers give back what they get

Internet griefers, also known as trolls, are considered a bane wherever they call home, but a recent coalition of griefers have decided to give something back.

Whether they're disagreeing with you in an overly elaborate debate, deliberately sparking controversy, or just being disagreeable, griefers tend to be unwelcome extras on the internet. Most digital citizens ignore griefers in hopes they will go away. However, the rare fool will occasionally “feed the troll” and start a new series of complaints going. The Crusade of Youth (CoY), a loose coalition of lesser griefer groups, might or might not be looking to change that image.

“we're just in it for the lulz, dumbass. but is there ever nebody who getz that? no. so we all got tugether and make CoY. we gonna give ya sumthin back fer all the lulz, maybe. we do got sumthin fer are l337 crew though, new way to prove yer point: nazi shit,” said |=|_|(|<'/0|_|345, CoY's spokesperson.

The new mode of argument has been described as a form of fallacy by the more erudite members of the internet community. Griefers using this new mode of argument attempt to win any debate by opening with and continuing to use the most inane ideas possible to wear down the other debater. As a form of intelligent debate, this Nazi Shit Fallacy falls short since nothing is really proven in an argument where the most inane argument wins. When confronted with this, |=|_|(|<'/0|_|345 was less than pleased.

"that soundz liek ssumthin a nazi would fucking shit out! are ya some sort of nazi? nazi! yer fucking wrong becuz yer a goddamn shit eating nazi! NAZI! NAZI!” said |=|_|(|<'/0|_|345.

While the use was fairly formulaic, the notion of invoking Godwin's Law, extreme vulgarity, and bathroom humor as a systematized argument form still marks a change in the griefer “movement.” While they were previously known for empathic usage of reductio ad absurdum, straw men, and argument from ignorance, this is the first time they have shown the initiative to create their own mode of argument instead of leeching off of formal logic. Not everyone feels the same way about the new fallacy. Dr. Alfred Rogers of the University of Washington doubts that the Nazi Shit Fallacy even counts as new form of flawed logic.

“If you look at it closely, the argument really is just a form of poisoning the well. In its most formalized form, the argument opens by equating the other speaker with the Hitler's feces. Since this is obviously meant to discredit the other speaker, the so-called “Nazi Shit” fallacy is really just a variation on an old favorite,” said Rogers.

Upon hearing this, CoY prepared a rebuttal.

“We here at CoY reject the notion that an insipid nance with a degree can distinguish between highly erudite forms of argumentation, and that he has the authority to dismiss the creative enterprise of our members as being derivative,” said 6070|-|3|_|_, the new spokesperson for CoY.

Contested status or not, expect to see the Nazi Shit fallacy on message boards that you frequent in the coming year as the membership of CoY expands.