These are some fallacies which I have encountered in my life and have never seen anyone give them a name, up until now, because several of those are documented on Wikipedia. For instance:
This consists in pointing out that a view is flawed because it isn't “balanced”. For instance, pointing out all the problems with the technological system will inevitably lead to some people preaching the virtue of finding balance within it, i.e. that we should strike the balance in terms of the complexity and amount of technology in our environment.
What the appeal of balance misses is that a situation can be so unbalanced in the first place, that temperance might consist in going all the way back to one side, or at least 95 to 99% towards it. I mean the easiest example is with slavery: what is the balance between slavery and no slavery? It's clearly abolishing slavery, because the two sides are not equally virtuous. We could argue that in practice, the marginal cost of trying to get rid of absolutely all slavery in a society, as opposed to getting rid of 98-99% of it, is not worth it—this is the optimal pollution cost argument—but still, my point is that the balance is not 50/50.
But to come back to the more difficult example with regards to technology: what does the balance look like? For me it is a relationship to technology where conscious decisions prevail in our world. In that regard, we live in a completely inverted world where most of our resources, time and attention go into maintaining and developing the technological system because we have no other choices to survive, as opposed to benefiting from it and naturally wanting to contribute to it.
This means that for instance, staying away from digital media, which is explicitly designed to hook you in and keep you scrolling for as long as possible, is much closer to a healthy sense of balance with regards to technology than those faux-centrist positions which keep moving their goalpost as every development in technology arrives.
The point of balance is ultimately conscious decision-making that is aligned with the context, not some abstract ideal middle point between made-up categories. Because the commonality between all the extremes is that they're stuck in something: emotions, the mind, or plain old unconscious behavior that reinforces itself.
Bullet point fallacy
Similar to the appeal to a false balance, the bullet point fallacy is when a comparison between two things is made, and it is assumed that having more bullet points in favor of one side means that it is better. Usually when people want to manipulate others into approving a decision, they come up with lots of bullet points in favor, and some bullet points against, to give the illusion that there is a fair comparison being made. But in reality, each bullet point does not hold the same weight.
For instance, when a company decides to reduce wages, they rarely do so explicitly. In my case, they instead give me a list of two or three new "advantages", which have been taken from my income in the first place. So the list of bullet points could look something like this:13
(-) Lose €50 a month
(+) Earn an additional €150 a year in meal vouchers14
(+) Earn €2 per day working from home
(+) An additional half-day of holiday
Of course the whole point is to make it difficult to tell if the change is net positive or negative, by for instance putting together daily, monthly and yearly figures like I did here. But usually if a company or government makes it ambiguous, then it is a bad trade for the recipients.
Fallacy fallacy
The idea that anything that contains a fallacy is completely wrong. This is a classic strategy adopted by people who want to tunnel on details so that they can ignore the main arguments, which probably reveal something uncomfortable about their own beliefs or even their own lives.
At this point there are so many fallacies that it is basically inevitable not to include a few of them. For instance: the appeal to authority can be said for anything that relies on a dominant position or source to derive its argument, which strikes me as an incredibly common and also reasonable thing to do if you don't exclusively rely on it.
Or the false equivalent and definist fallacy—when a term is defined in a biased manner such that it essentially justifies by itself the argument15—are so subjective that anyone with enough bad faith could call out an author for using them. “You say that the left-wing and the right-wing are essentially the same but that is a false equivalent because you are an anti-system anarchist who hates mankind and (...)”
Or take the ad hominem, where someone points out flaws in the author himself instead of the argument. Only people who are utterly detached from reality think that ideas can exist untethered from the people that believe in them. In truth, judging a tree by the fruit it bears is actually a much better strategy to navigate life than getting lost thinking about specific ideas all day long. Of course no one leads a perfect life, and that is why the ad hominem is a fallacy, when it is used as a misdirection away from a core argument in favour of focusing on details that benefit the other side. But the useful side of it is the ability to point out the bullshit and selfishness in egoic people, and deeper than that, the egoic societies that maintain them.
All in all, just take a look at the list of fallacies on Wikipedia, and try to imagine what it would take to write a text that doesn't contain any of them. The easiest way of course would be to say absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever, which in a way is what a lot of intellectuals seem to be doing these days.
Footnotes
7 A conscious usage of the mind would have access to conscious discernment, which would allow you to spot your own bullshit and thus calibrate your beliefs to fit reality, and thus have a clearer mental picture of it. Needless to say that this is quite rare because it requires a pretty deep epistemic and existential humility to admit that you are full of shit about pretty much everything, especially yourself.
8 It's actually hilarious that the fundamental problem of economics—that humans have infinite wants but finite resources—then prompts the study of economics, which essentially asserts that we should try to produce as many things as possible with those finite resources anyway. You would think that the insight into the infinite nature of wants would prompt a more spiritual inquiry, like: “huh, perhaps desires have something crazy in them, I wonder if we can have a more sane relationship with them?” But no, instead economics doubles down on desires, without trying to understand them.