• thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s also difficult to point it out when someone is doing it. Pointing out that they are participating in a fallacy never turns out how we want hahaha

    • VoxAdActa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s also difficult to point it out when someone is doing it. Pointing out that they are participating in a fallacy never turns out how we want hahaha

      This graphic would be more effective if it didn’t include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments. It’s not the concepts that get laughed at, it’s the keywords they’ve been trained to jump on and make fun of. They don’t understand the concepts behind the keywords at all.

      Dumbass culture has done excellent marketing/propaganda work in making the word “fallacy” a joke. Fortunately, there’s an easy workaround: you just don’t use the word or any of its terminology. They can’t tell you’re accusing them of a logical fallacy if you don’t actually use the handful of words they’ve learned to meet with thought-terminating cliches.

      Examples (from “more polite” to “less polite”):

      Incorrect - “That’s a false dichotomy!”

      Correct - “What makes you think those are the only two possibilities?”

      Incorrect - “I won’t fall for your straw man argument.”

      Correct - “Nobody but you actually believes that. That’s not even what we’re talking about.”

      Incorrect - “That’s not an argument, it’s just an appeal to popularity.”

      Correct - “Most of us grew out of the ‘but moooom, everyone else is doing it!’ at about 14.” or “So if everyone in this thread thinks it’s cool to just punch you in the nutsack, we should go ahead and do it because that makes it right? I’ll go first.”

      They won’t recognize your rebuttal if it doesn’t include one or more of those keywords right up front. Like an AI chat bot, they don’t understand the meaning of words they’re criticizing (or, often, even the words they’re saying). They just know that [X]% of the time, saying [Y] when someone else says [Q] ends the argument and gets them upvotes.

      It’s a lot like how a song can’t be included in the Christian Music genre if it doesn’t drop the word “Jesus” every second line, no matter how Christian the lyrics are otherwise.

      • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This graphic would be more effective if it didn’t include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments

        I think it should have the names of the fallacy listed. It gives someone a way to look up more information to understand it better or look up examples. I know that most people are resistant to learning and won’t do a damn thing, but I think it’s important to have for those who are open to learning.

        It’s almost a way to cite the commandments. Otherwise it’s just a list of statements without anything to back them up.

        • VoxAdActa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The keyword doesn’t make the statements credible. This is exactly what I’m talking about. The description of the fallacy is just as credible as the name of the fallacy. You’re doing the same thing I’m criticizing in other people; thinking that the latin words are the important part, rather than the concept of what makes a fallacy.

          The definition of a word isn’t in doubt if the word itself isn’t listed on the same line.