this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
300 points (96.0% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6584 readers
2 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Donβt ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure I really get what you mean, could you give an example?
I'll use some silly examples.
Ad hominem - taking a claim as automatically false because of who said it:
Ad autoritatem - taking a claim as automatically true because of who said it:
Sometimes authorities are wrong. The likelihood of being wrong might be smaller than the one of a random nobody, but it's still there. You can't simply deal with it as "authority said so then it's true". (Check what I said about inductive logic in the other comment.)
There's more, but they all boil down to "you aren't analysing the claim, you're analysing where the claim is from".
Thanks for clarifying! :)
One example that happens quite often is "look, Uyghurs are in forced labour camps in China", and the genetic fallacy response is "nooo that was reported by the New York Times which is an organ of western imperialism so it's all bullshit you're a westoid goon"