the_dunk_tank

We've swung the pendulum too far to the other side. People are being too gentle and diplomatic. We've forgotten part of why bullying works. Some people need to be chased away from the discourse. We had to chase so many people away to get the community and the vibes we have here now.

People like that I posted here should not feel comfortable acting like they are right now. They should be bullied to the point of silence for the sake of those around them, an for the sake of themselves becoming a lurker and hopefully acculturated to the community they've just joined.

Feel free to bully me if I'm wrong.

Also I hate to sound like a lemmyworlder here but their latest reply to me had 5 upvotes within 2 minutes of being posted. I think the belief that we're manipulating votes has led some of these specimens to take preemptive last resorts

To make it even funnier, this dork has at least two other alts that they're using to do the exact same "Philosophy 101 infographic everything you say is a fallacy" shtick and upvote the other alt's posts - every comment they make immediately jumps up to +6 or +7 and rarely goes any higher.

If there's anyone who seriously needs to be dunked on it's them. If for no other reason than to frustrate them with an overwhelming number of comments.

I agree. Some of the disingenuous shit I've seen from other instances has been disgusting and they deserve to get some pushback. As long as it doesn't break Hexbears rules

Just say informal logical fallacies aren't real and ask them to prove to you that they're actual logical fallacies worth caring about. Even Wikipedia has this blurb:

The traditional approach to fallacies has received a lot of criticism in contemporary philosophy. This criticism is often based on the argument that the alleged fallacies are not fallacious at all, or at least not in all cases. To overcome this problem, alternative approaches for conceiving arguments and fallacies have been proposed. These include the dialogical approach, which conceives arguments as moves in a dialogue-game aimed at rationally persuading the other person. This game is governed by various rules. Fallacies are defined as violations of the dialogue rules impeding the progress of the dialogue. The epistemic approach constitutes another framework. Its core idea is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. In the Bayesian approach, the epistemic norms are given by the laws of probability, which our degrees of belief should track.

All these nerds did was memorize the Wikipedia list on informal logical fallacies without understanding what informal logical fallacies are supposed to be. Appeal to authority is a good example. It's all well and good until it has the "it isn't appeal to authority if the source is an actual authority" clause. But therein lies the rub. Everyone appeals to what they believe to be an actual authority. Nobody appeals to the authority of who they believe to be an incompetent person. So, the informal logical fallacy called appeal to authority doesn't exist because no one is foolish enough to purposely appeal to a source that they themselves feel isn't an actual authority. I could go on. The vast majority of claims of ad hominem aren't actually ad hominem, but just generic insults. And even with actual ad hominem, ad hominem presupposes that there's no casual link between a person's idea and a person's action or character. You can see this with the type of ad hominem tu quoque. Tu quoque is just calling your opponent a hypocrite, but if one didn't separate one's thoughts from one's actions like some idealist liberal, then suddenly tu quoque isn't so fallacious. Why haven't your argument materialize in the real world, as demonstrated by you failing to live up to what you've just argued? Could it be that your argument is actually trash and you are completely full of shit?

Thats bait. I don't mind if you bully them but it is either on purpose or hopeless.

Wall behavior for sure.

Appeal to force first, appeal to force last, and never apologize for appealing to force. If their argument had any validity god would aid them in overthrowing us in mortal combat.

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

This sounds like what I apparently missed while I was out.

bullying lemmy.ml users is complete fair game anyways. their admins are on our side

Do not ping users from other federated instances with intent to goad or mock.

Do not directly link to comments or posts of other federated instances on public posts with intent to goad or mock.

Looks like a boring nerd anyway who cares

OP just shout fallacy fallacy at them and they'll crumble into dust

Oh I just encountered this person in the wild lol

i love these comments, this was the best bit i have come across in a long time. i was laughing my ass off the whole thread. it is even better if it is real. there is so little self awareness. i love it.

I was dunking on this person but I found a weird comment of theirs on a thread about "what would you do if it was your last day alive". I think they are legitimately mentally unwell and we should stop dunking on him.

😠