Rahmat Wibowo systematically dismantled a harasser's accusations by cataloguing nine logical fallacies from their threatening messages, sarcastically framing the campaign as a free 'logic textbook' while defending his AI-assisted legal notice and disclosing his own past manic-episode misconduct with candor.

A Field Guide to Logical Fallacies: Lessons from an Unexpected Teacher Study Case of Awas Rahmat Wibowo - June1,2026 A Field Guide to Logical Howone person's harassment campaign accidentally became the most comprehensive logic textbook Inever asked for. Kawal Rahmat Wibowo KawalRahmatWit In law school, professors spend semesters teaching students to identify logical fallacies — the flawed reasoning pattems that collapse under scrutiny. | didn't go to law school. But apparently, life decided to send the curriculum tome anyway, delivered free of charge via DMs and story posts over 2.5 years.Consider this article my tuition receipt — and my thank-you note Logical Fallacy #1 The Self-Defeating Threat (or: The Psychiatric Boomerang) "kamijuga udah ngelaporin kamu ke bareskrim dan RSJ Dr. Soeharto Heerdjan. Bedanya ga distory aja. Muka kamujuga ga kami sebarkan sepertiorang tidak waras" Translation: "We have also reported you to Bareskrim [National Detective Agency] and Dr. Soeharto Heerdjan Psychiatric Hospital. The difference is we didn't do it onourstory. We also didn't spread your face like a crazy person.” Pasal 38 Setiap Orang yang pada waktu melakukan Tindal Pidana menyandang disabilitas mental dan/atau disabilitas, intelektual dapat dikurangi pidananya dan/atau dilenai tindakan, Pasal 39 Setiap Orang yang pada waktu melakukan Tindale Pidana menyandang disabilitas mental yang dalam keadaan kekambuhan akut dan disertai gambaran psikotik dan/atau disabilitas intelektual derajat sedang atau berat tidak dapat dijatuhi pidana, tetapi dapat dikenai tindakan. This is a masterclass in unintentional self- defeat. The individual simultaneously reported me to the police (criminal proceedings) AND a psychiatric hospital (implying mental incapacity) — apparently without consulting Article 38 and 39 of UU No. 1 Tahun 2023 (the new Indonesian Criminal Code), which state precisely this: if a perpetratorhasa mental disability, punishmentis lessened (Art. 38); if the mental condition was severe and acute, they are exempt from criminal punishment entirely (Art. 39). So by reporting me toa psychiatric hospital, my accuserwas effectively building my legal defense forme. The logic is: if I'm mentally ill enough for RS), I'm too mentally ill to be criminally prosecuted. You can't have it both ways. You've either reported a criminal or reported a patient — the law will notlet you report both on the same facts. I'm genuinely grateful. | couldn't have written a better defense motion myself Fallacy: Contradictio in Terminis — The argument refutes itself. Logical Fallacy #2 Criminal-Civil Confusion (or: Choosing Both Lanes ona One-Way Street) “Tindakan kamu udah bukan cuma perdata lagi. Udah PIDANA. Kamilapor dua duanya” Translation: "Your actions are no longer just civil. It's now CRIMINAL. We've reported both." Let's pause here. In one statement, the individual: @ Declared my alleged actions were criminal (pidana), not civil (perdata), @Then — in the same breath — said they reported both. The problem? In other statements, this same person described UU ITE proceedings as civillaw — when UUITEis, by nature, primarily criminal legislation. You cannot in one conversation call something criminal, then later callit civil, then circle backto "both." This is not a minor terminology slip Criminal lawis prosecuted by the state. Civil awis pursued by the individual. They have different courts, different burdens of proof, and entirely different remedies. Conflating them doesn't make you sound like you have two cases — it makes you sound like you have zero understanding of either. Fallacy: Equivocation — Using the same term to mean different things. Logical Fallacy #3 The Credential Attack (or: Mocking the Lawyer, Accidentally Triggering PERADI) "anak iniasalngomong mens rea gatau penerapannya, dan sewapengacara bodong/pakaiAl" Translation: "This kid just talks nonsense about mens rea without knowing how to apply it, and hired a fraudulent lawyer / uses Al.” Calling a licensed legal professional a “pengacara bodong" (fraudulent lawyer) is not just rude — itis potentially a violation of professional ethics regulations and defamatory under Indonesian law. Advocates in Indonesia are regulated by PERADI (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia). Making public accusations of fraud against a registered advocate without evidence is exactly the kind of statement PERADI takes seriously The irony? This accusation was made precisely as a way to discredit my legal standing —butit ended up creating an independent reportable incident. If you're trying to win a legal dispute, publicly slandering the opposing counsel is a curious strategy. As forthe "mens rea" critique — mens rea is the Latin legal term for criminal intent. The individual mocked my use of it. Then inthe very next set of messages, used the term themselves. I'lllet that sit Fallacy: Ad Hominem + Genetic Fallacy — Attacking the person instead of the argument. Logical Fallacy #4 The "I Want to Help" illain Speech “ini saya bantu korbannya mamat karena ada kenalan pengacara. Mau dia ada masalah mental atau ngga, bawa ke kepolisian dulu biar dikurung, nantibaru dikurung di lapas atau di RSI terserah pihak berwenang. Kalau pakaikata kata dia, mat mat mat mat, yang bentarlagi nyikat dilapas” Translation: "I'm helping the victim here because Ihave a lawyer contact. Whether ornothe has mentalissues, bring himto the police first to be locked up, then later lock himin prison ora psychiatric hospital, up to the authorities. Using his words: mat mat mat mat, who's about to scrub [serve time] in prison." This paragraph opens with "saya bantu" — “lamhelping.” It then proceeds to describe dragging someone to jail, debating between prisonanda psychiatric facility, and ends witha mocking chant about someone serving prisontime. |want to formally recognize this as one of the most creative redefnnitions of “helping” Ihave ever encountered. In most languages and cultures, helping involves, at minimum, a net positive outcome for the person being helped What's being described here is something the criminal law community would call “intimidation” and what the rest of us would call "not helping." The chant — “mat mat mat mat" —isa personal touch. It's the kind of thing you might expect from a 12-year-old. The individual was 25 years old at the time of writing, Fallacy: Doublespeak — Labeling harm as assistance. Logical Fallacy #5 The Al Hallucination Accusation (From Someone Who Doesn't Know What. Hallucination Means) “olya, kuasa hukum jg sudah confirm kalau somasirahmat itu Al-GENERATED, Ga ada dasarnya, banyak halusinasi. Cocoklah sama orangnya... Kuasa hukum saya bilang itu ai generated karena banyak halusinasinya mamat dongoo mamat dongo. Ga sesuai dengan undang undang yang ada... Ga perlujadii anak IT untuk bisa tau apa yang kamu sebaritu FRAUD dan KEBOHONGAN. Kuasa hukum saya juga sudah confirm kalau laporan yang valid itu dari kami, yang anda mah valid dari Claude Al aja" Translation: "Ourlawyerhas confirmed that Rahmat's legal notice is Al- GENERATED, It hasno basis, full of hallucinations, Fitting for who heis... My lawyersaidit's Al generated because there are many hallucinations, you stupid Rahmat. Not aligned with existing laws... You don't need to be an!T person to know what you spread is FRAUD and LIES. My lawyerhas confirmed the valid reportis ours — yours is only valid from Claude Al.” Let's address the epistemological problemhere. The claimis that a legal somasi (notice) is invalid because it was “Al-generated” and contains “hallucinations" —a technical term meaning an Al fabricated information. This determination was made by a Jaw graduate, not a computer scientist or Al researcher. The field of Al output verification — distinguishing Al- generated text, detecting hallucinations, understanding model behavior — is a computer science discipline. A lawyer's opinion on whether text is Al-generated carries roughly the same professional authority as a software engineer's opinion on whether a contracts legally binding. Furthermore, evenif a document was Al- assisted, validity in Indonesian lawis determined by content accuracy and legal standing — not by which word processor was used. Microsoft Word also didn't write the statutes. We don’t typically call legislation invalid because it was typed ona computer. Fallacy: Appeal to False Authority — Citing a credential outside its domain of expertise. Logical Fallacy #6 Ganti Rugi# Pemerasan (Civil Damages Are Not Extortion) "Kamijuga ada bukti chat siRahmat ngirim somasiitu tujuannya buat malak duit dan dibisnisin. Sudah terlihat MENS REAnya. Confirmed by REAL lawyerya all.” Translation: "We also have evidence that Rahmat sent the legal notice with the intent to extort money and turnitintoa business. The MENS REAis already visible Confirmed by a REAL lawyer, everyone.” Under Indonesian civil law, any aggrieved party has the right to request gantirugi— compensation for damages — through the courts. This is not extortion (pemerasan). Pemerasan under the Indonesian Criminal Code requires coercion and threats. A formal legal somasi requesting civil compensationis, defnnitionally, the lawful mechanism designed for exactly this purpose. If requesting ganti rugi via a somasi constitutes pemerasan, then the entire Indonesian civillitigation systemis technically a criminal enterprise. | suspect the Mahkamah Agung would have thoughts about this interpretation. Also —and I say this gently — if your primary evidence of criminal mens reais a WhatsApp chat, you may want to speak with your REAL lawyer about burden of proof. Fallacy: False Equivalence — Treating two legally distinct concepts as identical. Logical Fallacy #7 The Assegaf Name Drop (Spider-Man Pointing Intensifies) “Ona serious note, nope. Lawyer keluarga dariassegaf. Kamiudah dapat kontak mamamu juga, jadi komunikasinya mulaisekarang dengan beliauya kedepannya. Goodluck, andihope you gethelp" Translation: "Ona serious note, nope. Our family lawyeris from Assegaf. We've also gotten yourmom’s contact, so from now on communication willbe with her. Good luck, and | hope you get help." For context: Assegaf Hamzah & Partners is one of Indonesia's most prestigious law firms. Itis also worth noting that the chairman of PERADI — the national bar association — is associated with this firm's network. [Two Spider-Men pointing at each other, captioned: "Assegaf partner” vs "PERADI chairman's firm" — realizing they're in the same network as the lawyer who was just calleda 'pengacara bodong’] The meme writes itself. In one thread, my advocate was called a fraud. In the next, the opposing party claims counsel from one of the most credentialed firms in the country — a firm whose network overlooks the very barassociation that regulates all Indonesian lawyers. I'llleave the irony here foryouto collect. As for contacting my mother: |had already provided my lawyer's contact details. Reaching out toa family member instead of legal counselisnot a negotiation tactic — it is the definition of social intimidation. This detail has been documented accordingly Fallacy: Appeal to Authority + Intimidation as Argumentation. Logical Fallacy #8 The Kitchen Sink (Everything Including the Nabi Accusation) “Loh kamu kan gila? Yajelas ke ibu kamu... ‘Pengacara' kamu (claude) nanti tinggal datang aja ke pengadilan. Kamingobrol dulu sama ibu kamu... MAMAT HASAD. sang hasidin yang pengacaranya claude Al, antum mengaku2 nabi tapi tidak paham agama, mengaku ngaku paham hukum tapilaw firm terkenal aja gatau. Mat mat mat mat mat, astagayagesya, yang akan nyikat nyikat di penjara, kalau gak ada orang dalam (ibu kamu), kamu bisa apa sih? Ipk mu dukomselya dulu? Kok dipecat pecat terus? Rahmat si HASAD, asal nuduh karena udah takut yagesya" Translation: "You're crazy, right? Of course we go to your mother... Your ‘lawyer’ (Claude Al) can just show up to court. We'll talk with your mother first... RAHMAT HASAD the hasidin [one who envies] whose lawyers Claude Al, you claim to be aprophet but don't understand religion, you claim to understand law but don't even knowa famous law firm. Mat mat mat mat mat, oh my, who will be scrubbing fioors in prison —without your insider connection (your mom), what can you even do? Your GPA was at Dukomsel level [poor]? Why do youkeep getting fired? Rahmat the HASAD, making accusations out of fear." This is what logicians call a “Gish Gallop" — overwhelming the opponentwitha rapid volley of accusations, so many that it becomes difficult to respond to each one. Let's try anyway: © "Mengaku-ngaku nabi' (claiming to be a prophet) — | have never made this claim Thisis fabricated ® GPAand firing history — irrelevant to any legal matter and constitutes defamation if false. © “Orang dalam" (insider connections via mother) — my mothers not a party to any of these proceedings and contacting her was not alegalmove @"HASAD" — anlslamic term for destructive envy. The theological accusationis ironic coming in the same message that includes a chant about someone going to prison. @ The phrase “yagesya" — thisis Indonesian teen slang for “ya gitu deh" (something like "yeah, whatever’). It appears twice. In what was presumably meant to be an intimidating legal threat. Fallacy: Gish Gallop + Multiple Ad Hominem — Volume substituting for substance. Iwant to be clear about something. None of this is written from anger. It's written. froma place of deep, almost archaeological fascination — because what you've just readis a rare specimen: a comprehensive logical fallacy collection, assembled organically, over 2.5 years, by a single individual In Indonesian law, in Islamic ethics, and in basic human discourse, the standardis not perfection — it's sincerity and coherence. You canbe wrong, Youcan be emotional. But when yourarguments simultaneously prove and disprove themselves, when your threats become legal gifts, when your mockery of Al expertise is confirmed by the absence of relevant credentials — at some point, the argumentis no longerwith me. Logical Fallacy #9 The Expired Weapon (or: Digging Up a 2.5-Year-Old Video and Finding Only a Legal Dead End) Let me be transparent about something before lapply the legal analysis — because intellectual honesty requires it. Personal statement Approximately 2.5 years ago, duringa manic episode — a period! did not fully controland have since sought help for—| behaved ina way that was wrong toward a woman who was not involved in any of the disputes describedin this article. lam not proud oft. Itake responsibility fort. The episode was part of amental health condition, but that does not erase the harm caused. |have made my peace with that chapter, sought accountability privately, and moved forward, The harasserrecently surfaced video of this incident and circulatedit — not as an act of justice toward the person actually involved, but as a weapon inan unrelated dispute, wielded by someone who had no personal stake in that original incident, against me Here is where the law becomes relevant —notasa shield from accountability, but asa framework that exists for precisely this kind of situation. Legal timeline — daluwarsa aduan Under Pasal 29 of the new KUHP, a criminal complaint must be filed within 6 months of the victim becoming aware of the incident. After that, the case cannot be processed bylaw — the right to prosecute is extinguished by operation of law, not by anyone's decision. It simply expires. This is called daluwarsa aduan, The incidentin question occurred approximately 30 months ago. The complaint window closed roughly 24 months ago, No prosecution canbe initiated at this point — not by the actual victim, and certainly not by a third party who was not involved. This brings us to the second problem: legal standing. In Indonesian criminal complaint law, a delik aduan (complaint offense) can only be reported by the aggrieved party — the person directly harmed. A third party who was not the subject of the incident, who has no direct legal interest init, and whois using it instrumentally in an unrelated dispute, has no legal standing to file or amplify sucha complaint. Circulating the video does not create standing. Outrage does not create standing. Being someone's friend does not create standing What this means, practically: the harasser surfaced a 2.5-year-old video of a private incident involving a completely different person, ina dispute that person has no part in, past the point at which any legal process could be initiated, wielded by someone with no legal standing to wieldit. The correct response to genuine concern forthat incident's subject would have been to support herin filing a report within the legal timeframe. That windowis long closed. What this is instead is character assassination — using someone else's pain as ammunitionina separate conflict. That's not advocacy That's exploitation. I say this not to minimize what | did 2.5 years ago. | say it to be precise about what this tactic actually is. Accountability and weaponization are not the same thing. The argument is with your own logic Iwish you well. | genuinely do. Rahmatan lil'alaminis nota selective principle — it applies even here. — Rahmat Co-founder, Infraloka | Rahmatan lil ‘Alamin #LogicalFallacies #indonesianLaw #UUITE #KHUPNasional #Harassment #Legalliteracy #infraloka #Linkedinindonesia #RahmatalilAlamin #PersonalBranding #MentalHealth #Accountability #SocialEntrepreneurship #Indonesia #Techindonesia