The comedian's defense

Something I've noticed from comedians in particular, but also late night show hosts, twitter personalities, podcasters, and even journalists/reporters, is the habit of deflecting all criticism by saying that you shouldn't take them seriously:

 

Podcaster: I believe X

Audience member: I think you're wrong because of Y

Podcaster: Calm down, I'm just an internet funny guy! Why are you taking me so seriously?

 

Basically, they voice a opinion in earnest, and when anyone gives a counterargument, they immediately start mocking you for taking them seriously in the first place, after which they continue espousing the same opinion. Is there any name for this? I know it's not exactly a logical fallacy, but it's pretty unscrupulous, and reminds me of the motte-and-bailey fallacy and courtier's reply in terms of defense mechanism.

I would consider this to be an example of a red herring . The person here has redirected the topic from the merits of their original argument, to a different argument about whether their statements should be taken seriously.

One thing I'd point out though is that this really does need to be examined on a case by case basis. While you can't get inside someone's head to tell what their true intentions were, context can often provide pretty good clues. It's pretty common for comedians and late night hosts to either use hyperbole to express their beliefs with comedic effect, or make statements that they outright disagree with in order to satirize them. And this can cut the other way, where a joke someone made can be stripped of its context and treated as a serious statement.

The behavior you're describing is indeed an interesting rhetorical tactic, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the classic logical fallacies. It involves expressing an idea or opinion, and then retreating to humor or personal identity ("I'm just a comedian") as a defense when that opinion is challenged. While it may not have a universally accepted specific name, it does share characteristics with several recognized rhetorical and logical phenomena:

1. **Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy**: This involves shifting between a more defensible position (the "motte") and a more controversial or ambitious claim (the "bailey"). In this context, the individual makes a strong or controversial statement (bailey), and when challenged, retreats to the defensible position of "I'm just joking" (motte).

2. **Evasion**: This tactic can be seen as a form of evasion, where the speaker avoids engaging with the counterarguments by shifting focus to their identity as a comedian or entertainer, rather than addressing the actual content.

3. **Ad Hominem Tu Quoque**: Though not a perfect fit, the response of "Why are you taking me so seriously?" could be seen as a deflection strategy that subtly criticizes the audience member for their seriousness, rather than addressing the content of their argument.

4. **Appeal to Humor**: This can be a subtype of the appeal to emotion, where humor is used to diffuse criticism or deflect from the argument. By appealing to humor, the speaker sidesteps engaging with the criticism in a meaningful way.

5. **Courtier's Reply**: This is similar in the sense that the courtier's reply dismisses criticisms by suggesting the critic is unqualified to understand the argument. In the comedic defense, the speaker suggests that critics are overreacting or misinterpreting their role, thus attempting to render the criticism irrelevant.

Overall, while this tactic might not strictly be classified under a single fallacy, it involves a clever manipulation of rhetoric that prioritizes deflection over genuine discourse. Recognizing and calling out this tactic can help foster more sincere and direct conversations.

Podcaster: I believe X

This is simply a statement. It is not a proposition. The fact somebody believes something is not relevant to any inquiry or analysis. If the audience member wishes to go forward, the response should not be "I think you're wrong because of Y." The response should be: Why do you believe X?

Then the podcaster can either produce evidence to support his belief or duck the whole thing by saying: "Calm down, I'm just an internet funny guy! Why are you taking me so seriously?"

If he ducks, this is the Fallacy of Diversion as he attempts to divert the focus to something else. That is when the audience member can have a field day with the podcaster.