VoxAdActa

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.

Probably has its roots from way back in the day so that women couldnt effectively run away from the men and get very far.

Can't speak to Muslim culture, but European culture way back in the day didn't want women riding horses because of sex.

There are a lot of branches on that tree, but the biggest one is that since horseback was believed to be capable of rupturing the hymen (hymen science has progressed quite a bit since I last looked into it, so I don't know if that's actually a thing), it was the same thing as having sex for women. They believed that women got sexual pleasure from it (which, I guess, was a bad thing), that they'd start craving horses as lovers instead of humans, and all sorts of weird shit that only twisted, perpetually horny dudes would think of.

So the sidesaddle was invented. It allowed women to ride horses while, literally and figuratively, keeping their legs closed.

Unfortunately, riding sidesaddle is a massive pain in the ass, so that fad didn't last long. Maybe about fifty years or so of general popularity (because, obviously, you can still get a sidesaddle and learn to ride in it today, if you want, for whatever reason) over the course of all horse-domestication history.

Of course, like so many things from European history, this primarily applied to rich/noble people. The poor didn't have the luxury of giving a fuck about most of it.

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.

So if someone is not familiar with your social rituals then they are not to be trusted?

Yes. This is the basis of pretty much all Western human interaction, from the observations and data I have collected over the last 30+ years. It is the root of all inter-group conflicts in the country, from the lofty halls of politics to the "that group's not really a metal band!" subreddit pettiness.

Humans are ritualistic and their interactions are so rigid as to be almost mechanistic, when you get down to the base of them. Every person isn't so much a unique individual as they are a unique combination of common parts, and their communication ceremonies reflect that.

Because someone who doesn't want to shake hands because it is taboo in their culture is the same thing as someone refusing to check the flaps before takeoff.

Yes. That is exactly correct. If you don't do the ritual right (or right enough, within a margin of specification), you will not be trusted.

Does it make rational sense from the perspective of a sapient being capable of examining their own actions? Fuck no. But that's the world we live in. We refuse to learn it and adapt to it at our peril.

other than the knowledge of and conformity to social rituals.

That's exactly the point.

What is the benefit of screening people through social rituals?

You know instantly who's part of your culture. Whether or not they are a part of your sub-group within that culture. Whether or not they are capable of interacting with strangers in a way that isn't frightening or disturbing (try asking a guy on meth "So, how about this weather?").

If you respond to a social ritual with hostility, that tells the other person exactly what they want to know about you. They know to avoid you, that you are not "friendly", meaning that you are not a person who can be trusted with other, more important/complex social rituals.

You're seriously asking "What's the point of testing the flaps when the plane is on the ground? It's not flying. What do I need to know about the flaps when we're not flying? It's just me and the plane lying to each other?"

It's not a story a perfectly spherical Jedi in a vacuum would tell you.

It doesn't weed out anything but honest people.

That's like saying a pre-flight check doesn't throw up errors on anything anything but honest machines. But, more to the point, you're right, in the sense that the people on either tail end of the "good/bad people" bell curve aren't going to be precisely detected by a simple test of inclusion/exclusion criteria. The ~60% of people in the middle will be. That's why it's a screening tool, not an in-depth socio-psychological exam.

As long as your honesty comes closer to filling the socially expected role than, say, a man who's high on meth or a Qanon conspiracist who thinks "how are you?" is a sex-trafficker code, you're probably ok.

I agree. That's exactly what I do. Memorize two or three different socially acceptable answers to each of the half-dozen or so most common "human vibe check" questions.

Because that's exactly what they are. They're human vibe checks. It's not about finding out how you're really feeling, or what you honestly think of the weather. It's about being a quick way to sort out who is capable of of functioning in a social capacity and who isn't, without putting in a lot of time and effort doing an in-depth screening.

"Small talk" is culturally designed to weed out 70-80% of those people who are likely to be dangerous, unstable, or unreliable, allowing us to know who we need to pay close attention to in our environment and who we probably don't. It's not a question of "lying" or "telling the truth", it's a question of "can you perform your socially expected role in this cultural ritual?".

Saying "I'm fine, how are you?" is no more "lying" than doing a safety check on an airplane you're about to fly is (because you don't actually need to engage the flaps right now, being on the ground and all). It's just about checking to make sure the right lights come on and the right motors engage. If a person can't even answer a question they've had decades to prepare for, and can't engage, even to a minimum acceptable degree, in a small social ceremony they've watched thousands of times and had hundreds of opportunities to practice themselves, that's a bad sign. That's like trying to engage the flaps and hearing some weird grinding noise and getting a red blinking light on the console.

It's important to note here that I have a bit of an advantage in this arena over a lot of the rest of the community. One of my deepest autistic hyperfocus areas has been observing, experimenting, and collecting data on human interpersonal communications, specifically linguistic communication. It's all very ritualistic, at its base, and it's easy for me to create, memorize, and practice the scripts for performing those rituals in different contexts. And when I fuck one up, I can go back through and memorize another script so if that same conversation every comes up in the future (and it will, because there are only so many rituals!), I won't fuck it up again (to the same degree).

I've got a friend who's otherwise a great guy, but his anxiety disorder is just bonkers bad. Climate change is terrifying to him, so he copes by just straight-up refusing to believe that it's a big deal. It can be solved by planting a bunch of trees, or spraying some kind of plastic particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight ("It's been tested in Alaska! It works! But the government shut it down!"), or by some as-yet-unrevealed technology that's just around the corner.

Also, he's incredibly, unreasonably mad at Al Gore for making An Inconvenient Truth and will insist that he was wrong about literally everything and should never have opened his mouth.

I have to make a concerted effort not to argue with him too much, because I'm pretty sure that if I actually convinced him, he'd self-harm out of fear of the future.

I honestly think he's just a more extreme, slightly-more-self-aware version of how most conservatives feel about the climate change issue. It's scary, so it can't be true.

Yes, motherfuckers, I do demand that all of my morals and beliefs be as close to 100% internally consistent as possible, and yes, I actually believe them all the time. Who are these assholes saying hypocrisy and amoral selfishness are fucking good things?

The man literally, openly wants me to die.

I'm not allowed to reciprocate?

Fuck that.

More like r/bots.

Like, ok, there were bots in the previous r/place events, but this one is fucking stuffed with bots. Every piece of art on that page has been entirely botted, except maybe for the sad Turkish flag that keeps trying to get the star right.