Like, when people - particularly on the internet, because everything about Internet makes doing this so much easier - are in the middle of a cheery little hateshit on [group], and you disagree with their statements about [group] to the effect that they’re being irrationally hateful or making shit up or whatever, and they respond by assuming you must obviously be part of [group].
Like my favorite example of this is when people fire up a good hateshit about how terrible bicyclists are, and how dangerous they are to drivers, and how they’re always breaking the law, and how they should all get off the road. And then I point out that cars are actually a million times more dangerous than bicyclists, and drivers constantly break the law (because hey guess what, speed limits… are a law, which literally every driver breaks).
And then the response to me is generally something along the lines of “LOL SHUT UP HIPPIE PEACENIK SCUM GO NAKED-RIDE YOUR FIXIE ALL OVER SAN FRANCISCO”
And like, the reason this in particular is my favorite example of this is that I drive a BMW and my bike is a shitty piece of Huffy garbage that’s had a flat tire for the last four years.
Anyway like, obviously this is a form of ad hominem, but I wonder if there’s a word for this particular presumptive version of it, where someone’s argument proves they are the thing that invalidates their argument.
Also if there’s a good description of the initial general thing I’m talking about, I’d be interested in that as well, like this sort of generally shitheaded exercise in bashing THOSE PEOPLE, by whatever ridiculous terms THOSE PEOPLE are determined to be.