No, i have never thought that people on reddit speak the way they do because that's how most people generally speak online.
Link cause I'm not always a lib: https://hexbear.net/comment/3938186
Edit: followed up by this gem
As I'm sure you can imagine, nothing i said was remotely like "no, u"
"what the fuck do you mean redditors talk a certain way?"
*proceeds to type in the most redditbrained way possible*
Em, em, ahem
Honestly, to be honest, let's be honest here
I hate to break it to you, but
It's funny that
it's ironic that
I like it that
logic, reason, @Civility@hexbear.net and nonpolitical common sense are not welcome in this (ableist slurs here) robot hivemind of tankies. SIGH I suppose I must take my logic and reason elsewhere. Good luck in life, I believe in you!
I too learned about logical fallacies in high school. I am very smart and handsome because I remembered to say ad hominem.
Nooooo!! That’s straw man appeal to authority post hoc ergo funko pop!
Redditors absolutely have a particular way of communicating online. This is peak "I'm an American and everyone has an accent except me" brain.
Of course the Redditor is a fallacy-hunter. Imagine my shock.
I haven't read the discussion but most shit tier fallacy-hunters will invoke the strawman fallacy simply because they feel that you haven't accurately represented their position or they feel that your opinion on their position is incorrect. That ain't a strawman; a strawman is creating a distorted caricature as a representation of their position and arguing against that rather than directly addressing their position in order to "win".
For example, saying "social democracy is the left wing of fascism" in response to a person extolling that political orientation might get you responses about how you're strawmanning but expressions of opinion or making statements about how you perceive social democracy does not a strawman maketh.
As for the non sequiturs and red herrings, this shouldn't even register in a discussion except in edge cases. Discussions online are not formal debates and you don't get to impose your parameters for what is considered relevant to the discussion. If you don't see the relevance, just say as much.
There's absolutely no need to cloak your rhetoric in the language of fallacies in most situations.
Logical fallacies are meant to be used as a way to identify errors in your own line of thinking and others so that you can respond appropriately. Being familiar with logic and fallacies can be useful to draw upon in discussions but they should be used to inform how you present your arguments and how you respond to others.
It isn't some scoreboard where if a person commits enough fallacies then the other person wins smh.
I feel like there's something uniquely cringe about the way redditors seem to love more than anything to invoke the names of the fallacies. Like if someone's argument isn't sound it's totally reasonable to point that out, but the redditbrain seems to only care about naming the fallacy rather than actually doing that. Of course there's also just the fact they're just wrong a lot of the time. Like yeah for sure believing in cause and effect is definitely a slippery slope fallacy you got me
Exactly.
99% of the time when I see someone invoke fallacies I'm like "...okay, so what are you going to do about it?" and almost all the time they don't do shit. It's just self-aggrandizing nonsense because saying "You just insulted me! How dare you!?" would get you laughed at online so instead they wrap that same sentiment up in fancy Latin terms so they can feel smug about it.
The only time I ever really use logic terms in online discussions is when people slip into syllogistic reasoning because it's a shortcut and trying to expound upon what a syllogism is to a Redditor is hell because they always dig their heels in and nitpick your examples or they'll object to the example entirely (because Redditors are gonna Redditor) failing to grasp that you're actually just trying to communicate something like, no, being a vegetarian doesn't make you a Nazi simply because Hitler was (allegedly) a vegetarian.
Trying to handhold Redditors through this sort of thing is my own fault though and I only have myself to blame for it.
100% Cheezy
100% Weezle
93% sure I argued with an alt of this guy before it got banned. I of course could be paranoid but this particular way of writing just seems familiar.
this particular way of writing just seems familiar
Redditese has only a few variations. I don't even mean they're "bots" like they accuse us of being. What I mean is they have a form letter style that they tend to follow to sound as smug and superior as possible with a condescending glaze of passive aggressive civility pretenses.
It usually begins with some condescending "I suppose I can bother myself with the rabble" preface like "ahem" or "um" or "hate to break it to you, let's be honest" followed by a "not mad" qualifier for a rage statement, such as "I like it that/it's funny that" then whatever they're mad about, followed by concern trolling and a sprinkling of ableism (because they believe that people that disagree with them are mentally ill and mental illness means they are fundamentally bad people!) and then lamentations and self pity about how their @Civility@hexbear.net is being rejected.
True, true but I mean their position (or supposed) political position in conjunction with how they write and how desperate they are in trying to annoy you reminds me of a user I argued with for a few days who then was banned.
Amazing guy tbh. I recommended a book about the political system of China and how they aren't capitalist and then the fucker went ahead and read a literature review of the book in a journal WITHOUT realising that this wasn't the book. When I called them out they handwaved it away by saying something like "the book is blatant Chinese propaganda and I won't waste my time reading it."
Because Springer (the scientific publisher not Springer Press) is known to be a CPC outhouse and publishing pro China propaganda non stop. These fuckers are so dense while pretending to be above us.
These fuckers are so dense while pretending to be above us.
They're not above us, but they are certainly amogus.
I can see that you lack the intelligence to actually see that I never really said much about my own ideology,
A few decades of South Park and related Enlightened Centrism later, the smuggest of Reddit liberals have determined that they are immune to ideological criticism if they never declare what they stand for and act like that's a mysterious and awesome evasive Third Way position instead of cowardice.
I was there.
I was the one arguing with that very nonpolitical non-member of every possible ideology that they were taking talking points from while being terrified of actually being pinned as anything in particular.
I saw some shit.
They just popped up in the other post i made about them, if you want to say hi
https://hexbear.net/post/583580
Jesus Christ how fucking tedious. I involuntarily let out an "oh my God" toward the end.
And, you know, that gets me thinking... this whole conversation is exactly what capitalists want; infighting. You think I'm not radical enough for you, so you then label me as completely opposed to you. The problem is, I can guarantee we share a great many ideals, but you are too busy gatekeeping to allow others with slightly different but reconcilable ideals to be allies.
The international front for free college and legal weed requires your support for free college and legal weed. And nothing else. Anything more extreme than that would be (ableist adjectives here)!
well deserved comrade
