1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across "back-petal", instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".
The only one that continues to bug me is using "an" instead of "a" before a word that starts with a consonant sound. I especially dislike the phrase "an historic" (as in "it was an historic victory") which has bafflingly been deemed acceptable. Unless you're a cockney, it should be "a historic". The rule is to use "an" if the word starts with a vowel sound, and "a" otherwise. IMO.
Some weirdos write decades as possessive. Writing "90's" implies that there's a 90 that owns something.
I feel like the vast majority of people online use "yay or nay" instead of "yea or nay".
Online in general: using "reductio ad absurdum" as a fallacy.
It's a longstanding logical tool. Here's an example of how it works: let's assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:
∞ + 1 = ∞
And:
∞ - ∞ = 0
Agreed? If so, then:
∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞
And therefore:
1 = 0
Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.
It's a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It's possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it's not reductio ad absurdum.
Well if we're going to be talking about logical fallacies, I feel like the string of arguments that you made there is a category error. Infinity isn't exactly a number, it's more of a philosophical concept than anything else. I would argue that trying to subtract Infinity from Infinity is illogical and kind of silly, but it wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum as you put it, but instead a category error.
An absurdist argument might be more like, if I have one cat I can trade it for one dog. Therefore infinite cats can be traded for infinite dogs. This is obviously absurd, because infinite cats don't exist, unfortunately.
Using loose instead of lose.
I'm losing friends for loosing dogs on useless losers' loose use of lose and loose
What entitlement means vs false sense of entitlement.
I tell people they are entitled to their rights and have an entitlement to their social security money for example, and they get offended thinking I mean "false sense of entitlement" instead.
I really hate it when us media uses the word "ouster".
For example:
"Vail Resorts shareholder calls for ouster of CEO, CFO and Rob Katz"
They mean to use the word here as "removal", but "oust" is also a verb and "ouster" would be "one who ousts".
So, calls for the ouster of the CEO/CFO to do what?
I think the ouster is supposed to be the event that results in ousting. But it's so redundant it's not funny. Removal would be for much better.
i feel like we should be able to beat the living shit out of people intentionally spreading political misinformation.
Like im sorry, this may not meet instance rules, or whatever, but like, holy fuck, the amount of shit you can just lie about, without people asking question, kneecaps should've happened years ago, what the fuck are we doing bro.
"The proof is in the pudding."
The actual phrase is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
It means that your dessert might look and smell delicious, but if you fucked up the recipe, say by using salt instead of sugar, then it will taste bad. You won't know for sure until you eat it. So, a plan might look good on paper but be a disaster when implemented.
"The proof is in the pudding" doesn't mean anything.
On the US one thing is different from another, not than. One thing differs from another. It's different from the other thing.
Although in the UK it's "different to" for some reason.
Coming from the other direction - when someone ackshullys a parson, but the person was using the phrase correctly.
I had to explain to someone online today that "liminal space" had multiple meanings, and it didn't only refer to spaces you transition through, and the spooky "liminal space aesthetic" is a valid and coherent use of the word "liminal" and the term "liminal space"
The "positive anymore" is a vile grammatical abomination spawning from the Midwest US.
Normally using the word anymore has a negative tone to it (I don't eat meat anymore) . Except when used in this manner which seems to be when they should instead be saying currently or nowadays.
I find it viscerally unappealing.
I'm not entirely against it, but I'm amused by how common it is to put "whole" inside of "another", making it "a whole nother". Can anyone give any other use of the word "nother"?
