You hear it all the time, in tech, in politics, in philosophy: "No real X would do Y." It sounds definitive, even righteous. But often, it's a logical fallacy in disguise. The No True Scotsman fallacy happens when someone redefines a category to protect their argument from valid criticism. Instead of engaging with the counterexample, they simply move the goalposts. (1)

Take a classic tech culture example. I've heard this from more than a few gatekeepers: "No real programmer uses drag-and-drop tools." Really? So Visual Basic, PowerApps, and yes, even Access developers just don't count? These platforms may abstract away some of the heavy lifting, but that doesn't mean the people using them aren't solving real problems with logic, structure, and discipline. You can write unreadable garbage in C++, and you can build powerful business tools in Access. The tool doesn't define the skill. The output does.

Speaking of Access, I once saw this play out in an online forum where someone said, "No developer would use Access as a backend." I pushed back gently and pointed out that with proper architecture and constraints, Access works just fine for small to medium business apps. Then came the reply: "Well, no real developer would build apps that small anyway." Ah, there it is. Not a debate. Just a dodge. If the facts don't fit, redefine the club.

In business, a manager says, "No professional misses a deadline." But when you point out that one of the company's top project leads missed a deadline last quarter due to a client-side delay, the manager replies, "Well, no true professional would have let that happen." The definition of "professional" quietly shifts to exclude the counterexample, even if the original claim was too rigid for the real world.

In marketing, a brand says, "No real coffee lover drinks instant." But when shown survey data that many lifelong coffee drinkers do use instant for convenience, they respond, "Well, those people clearly don't appreciate coffee the right way." Again, rather than adjusting the claim to fit reality, they redefine "coffee lover" to protect their marketing angle. (2)

You'll find this fallacy popping up in political debates all the time. "No real patriot would criticize the administration." "No true supporter of the cause would question the leadership." It's a rhetorical trap designed to silence dissent. Instead of grappling with the argument, it reclassifies the speaker as illegitimate.

It shows up in morality, too. "No good person would ever do that." Well, maybe the definition of "good" needs more nuance. People are complicated. Sometimes they make mistakes, or change their minds. Insisting that moral purity is all-or-nothing isn't just unfair - it's intellectually lazy.

You also hear it in more philosophical or belief-driven circles. I've had conversations where someone says, "No true follower of [insert tradition] would behave that way," even in the face of documented cases. But the history of any movement - philosophical, ethical, or cultural - is filled with internal contradictions. Pretending otherwise isn't noble. It's revisionism.

And now, cue the transporter beam, because we're heading to Star Trek, of course. Plenty of excellent examples...

Worf was constantly told he wasn't a true Klingon. Why? Because he chose to serve in Starfleet. Because he followed rules of honor that others had long abandoned. Because he tried to uphold the ideal of Klingon culture, even when the actual Klingons around him did not. He was dismissed for being raised by humans, and for acting with restraint. But here's the irony: Worf arguably embodied the best of what it meant to be a Klingon - honor, loyalty, duty. The ones who called him out were often hypocrites.

Same goes for Spock. More than once, he was told he wasn't a real Vulcan. Not just because of his human mother, but because he occasionally expressed emotion, or made choices based on personal attachment. But Spock lived by logic more consistently than many full-blooded Vulcans ever did. The No True Scotsman logic didn't apply to him either - but it was still used, often, to dismiss him.

This fallacy is more than just an unfair argument tactic. It's a way of protecting belief systems from criticism by redefining who gets to belong. That makes it dangerous, especially in conversations where growth and accountability should matter. If your ideas can't handle an exception, maybe the problem isn't the exception.

So next time someone says, "No true professional," or "No real believer," or "No serious programmer," stop and ask: are they defending a principle, or just redrawing the map so they can keep feeling right?

LLAP
RR

(1) I know we have some real Scotsmen here, including one of my moderators (hey, Kevin). I was curious where the name of this fallacy came from, so I had to do a little research. The name No True Scotsman comes from philosopher Antony Flew, who described a man claiming that "no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." When told that a Scotsman does put sugar on his porridge, he replies, "Well, no true Scotsman would do that." Instead of accepting a counterexample, he redefines the term to protect his claim. It's a classic way to dodge inconvenient facts by quietly shifting the goalposts.

(2) Who remembers the "he never has a second cup of my coffee" commercials? LOL