This type of response is called Ignoratio elenchi[1], and is a classic technique of twitter trolls and t_d reddit trolls. It is typically used to defend the person of interest in a discussion by dredging the entirety of history for an example of an individual even tangentially related to a group that is in opposition to the person of interest, doing something "bad," with the "bad" being inflated using doublespeak or falsehoods if necessary.
So in this case, we were discussing how Republican voters are unafraid to vote for a pedophile because of his political affiliation, bearing in mind that this is the topical issue at hand because voters have been quoted saying they'd "rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat" (unprovided but assumed common knowledge in the context).
The poster then found a single state law (unrelated to federal election context) regarding disease transmission (unrelated to pedophilia or federal election context) being passed by state legislators of the democratic party (impossible moral comparison - passing a law about disease transmission versus being personally accused of pedophilia). The poster sums it up by declaring because of this one action of a state government thus equalizes all parties and is also applicable in this case merely because of the letter next to their names.
The end result is muddied waters, successful redirection, and further division. Are we talking about pedophilia and republican voter stubborness, or are we arguing the pros and cons of changing California state law re: disease control? God only knows.
I'm doing my best to define, recognize, and combat these kinds of troll techniques, and am open to feedback and suggestions. I get it, "never argue with a troll, they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience," and also, there are probably better things I can do with my time than argue on the internet, but I usually just do it in 5-10 minutes spurts while coding anyway, not much else I can do as a quick break.
This sort of misdirection and "whataboutism" frustrates me too. Thank you for the elaborate response; I will keep this in mind the next time I have to battle a troll like the GP.
This was very helpful. Perhaps you could simply break down future responses into a list of fallacies being used in the parent post and link to them. Might save you some time so you can attack a larger number of troll responses.
I've thought about that - I need to have a better grasp of fallacies before I do. Luckily trolls tend to stick in ad hominem / red herring type fallacies so it's simpler, but yup definite goal of mine!
So in this case, we were discussing how Republican voters are unafraid to vote for a pedophile because of his political affiliation, bearing in mind that this is the topical issue at hand because voters have been quoted saying they'd "rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat" (unprovided but assumed common knowledge in the context).
The poster then found a single state law (unrelated to federal election context) regarding disease transmission (unrelated to pedophilia or federal election context) being passed by state legislators of the democratic party (impossible moral comparison - passing a law about disease transmission versus being personally accused of pedophilia). The poster sums it up by declaring because of this one action of a state government thus equalizes all parties and is also applicable in this case merely because of the letter next to their names.
The end result is muddied waters, successful redirection, and further division. Are we talking about pedophilia and republican voter stubborness, or are we arguing the pros and cons of changing California state law re: disease control? God only knows.
I'm doing my best to define, recognize, and combat these kinds of troll techniques, and am open to feedback and suggestions. I get it, "never argue with a troll, they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience," and also, there are probably better things I can do with my time than argue on the internet, but I usually just do it in 5-10 minutes spurts while coding anyway, not much else I can do as a quick break.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi