Dodging DEI: How Logical Fallacies Are Used to Avoid Logic and Shut Down Debate

Last week, I published a post on LinkedIn with a screenshot of a text note that I had seen elsewhere about the acronym for DEI.

The image read:

“If you oppose "DEI," you should have to use the full phrase instead of the letters. Be brave and say, "I oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion." Bonus points if you admit which part of that you don't like. Making it an acronym transforms it into a thought-termination cliché. From now on, be proud of your opinions, but be specific. Let everyone know if it's diversity you don't like, or if it's equity, or if it's being inclusive.”

This, I believe, is a brilliant reframe for DEI and I only wish I had thought of it! It showcases excellent critical thinking and observation. However, not everyone agreed.

One person commented,

“Does this obvious logical fallacy (False Dichotomy, Ad Hominem, Assumption of Uniformity) really form a convincing argument to you?”

Instead of discussing what “diversity, equity, and inclusion” actually mean, people argue over a three-letter abbreviation.

Acronyms, particularly in highly charged conversations, can act as rhetorical shields—obscuring meaning and allowing people to hide behind vagueness—and potentially their own prejudices.

The image’s message invites people who oppose DEI to be specific about what, exactly, they reject. That’s a reasonable and important request—one that takes the onus off the person who supports DEI needing to further justify their reasoning.

Yet, rather than engaging with the idea, this person dismissed it outright. I politely asked them to clarify and explain how the post I shared is a logical fallacy. They have not yet responded.

But are they correct? Let’s break it down.

False Dichotomy?

A false dichotomy occurs when someone presents two options as the only possibilities when others exist.

The image I shared does not force a binary choice—it doesn’t say, “Either you say you hate DEI, or you’re a hypocrite.” Instead, it points out that using the acronym allows people to avoid confronting what they are actually opposing. My post doesn’t limit responses—it invites specificity.

No false dichotomy here—just a call for clear and honest discussion.

Ad Hominem?

Ad hominem is when someone attacks a person instead of engaging with their argument.

The image does not insult or belittle anyone; it simply asks people to be direct about their position and what they believe about the meaning of each word. If anything, this person's response to my post is more in line with an ad hominem—he dismisses my argument by labeling it as fallacious rather than addressing its content.

No personal attacks in my post—just an invitation to state opinions more clearly.

Assumption of Uniformity?

This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that something applies universally without considering exceptions.

The image does not claim that all DEI opponents think the same way or oppose the same things. It simply calls for specificity: If you oppose DEI, which part do you oppose? And can you justify your position, opinion, and reasoning?

No assumption of uniformity—just a challenge to be explicit about one’s stance.

What’s Really Happening Here?

Rather than engaging with the ideas in my post, this person used a rhetorical deflection, dismissing what I wrote as “logical fallacies.”

This is a form of pseudo-intellectual dismissal—throwing out terms like "False Dichotomy, Ad Hominem, Assumption of Uniformity" to shut down discussion rather than engaging with the actual point. It’s a way to avoid an uncomfortable conversation—based in truth and critical thinking—by making it seem as though the argument isn’t worth engaging with in the first place.

If he had a legitimate argument, he could have stated it. Instead, he hid behind academic-sounding language to appear authoritative while avoiding real engagement—which is insufficient to disprove any argument.

Ironically, his response functions as a thought-termination cliché in the very same way the image describes.

What do you really mean?

The next time someone categorically dismisses something you said or wrote, by referring to a list of supposed logical fallacies, or categorizing you as woke, ask them,

“Can you clarify exactly, and specifically, what you mean when you say…?”

In this way, you are providing them the opportunity to point out a genuine flaw in your reasoning and to engage in conversation and debate. Or will they continue using academic-sounding jargon, a buzzword, or virtue signalling to shut down discussion and deflect from revealing their own prejudices or critical thinking about the subject?

If they intend to shut down discussion, they’re not debating in good faith—they’re avoiding the conversation altogether.

This is not about calling them out—that will only put them further on the defensive.

We must invite others to understand—not justify—their own beliefs and values by asking them to explain their reasoning in their own words.

A necessary and transformative aspect of human-hearted leadership in 2025:

To change hearts and minds, the onus must be on the person in opposition to challenge their own thinking—as an invitation—especially if they’ve adopted someone else’s belief or ideology. By inviting someone to think critically about what they believe, they have to substantiate their reasons for what they believe for themselves.

This goes both ways if we are going to build bridges of understanding and respect for our common humanity.

Compassion, humility, and impartiality (a tall order indeed) are the best tools to cultivate such a conversation—but only if the other person is willing to take the next step, and if both parties are willing to communicate in good faith.

Leading with Clarity in an Age of Polarization

In today’s world, where a tweet or comment is often mistaken for a well-reasoned argument, meaningful dialogue is harder to cultivate. Thoughtful discussion—especially on complex topics like DEI—requires critical thinking, reasonableness, and the ability to engage with respect and understanding. 

Yet, many default to binary responses, avoiding nuance and shutting down debate before it begins.

So how do you lead ethically, compassionately, and effectively—staying true to your values while fostering engagement rather than resistance? How do you communicate your ideas in a way that encourages curiosity rather than defensiveness?

Let’s Find Your Path to Influential Thought Leadership

If you want to sharpen your critical thinking, communicate with greater clarity, and lead in a way that inspires action rather than reaction, let’s talk. I offer thought leadership strategy calls to help you develop your voice, refine your message, and engage others in meaningful, productive conversations.

Use the contact form below to share your details and the most difficult challenge you’re currently facing in your leadership.