The Tantranum Fallacy

You know it when you see it. And we're seeing a lot of it these days.

---

Argumentum Tantranum

(tantrum + ad hominem + emotive dominance theater)

Definition:
The Tantranum Fallacy occurs when a speaker abandons rational discourse entirely and substitutes emotional volatility, insults, and performative outrage for argument. It is not a derivative of ad hominem — it includes ad hominem as one of its weapons — alongside appeals to fear, ridicule, and sheer noise. The goal is not persuasion but submission through overwhelm.

---

🧠 Logical Signature:

• Includes but is not limited to:

  • Ad Hominem (personal attacks)

  • Appeal to Emotion (usually anger, fear, disgust)

  • Red Herring (derailing with emotional misdirection)

  • Argument from Volume (shouting or repetition)

  • Virtue Signaling (“I care more than you, therefore I am right”)

• Often signals epistemic retreat — the person has lost the ability or willingness to reason.

He is losing it.

---

🧪 Canonical Example:

“You’re literally killing people by questioning this! I’m so tired of your garbage! You people shouldn’t be allowed to speak — just shut up already!”

There’s no claim, no evidence, no logic — just volume, accusation, and emotional violence.

---

⚠️ Diagnostic Features:

• Escalates instead of responds

• Attacks the speaker, not the argument

• Uses performative distress or outrage to preclude rebuttal

• Often deploys mass appeal (“everyone knows you’re wrong”)

• Ends with silencing behavior (e.g., calling for deplatforming)

---

❌ Why It Fails:

The Tantranum Fallacy is not a rebuttal but a breakdown — a deliberate rejection of reasoned exchange in favor of dominance theater. It disqualifies itself from rational dialogue and should be treated not as a counterargument, but as an emotive blockade.

In rational discourse, resorting to argumentum tantranum is considered a concession that one has lost the debate.