"Reasoning about" isn't the same as "performing" an action.
brianary
joined 1 year ago
Fallacies apply to debate, not to actions like voting.
How did you read that into what I wrote?
You know what I meant.
Their myopic crusade will doom the whole planet.
Feels like a pretense to discourage protests.
Touché. Hit a nerve, I guess.
I'm pretty sure they only care about their performative solipsism.
And Ctrl + Insert.
It can be more convenient with Dvorak.
Windows 10 keeps turning that stupid news feed back on on my taskbar, too.
I work in finance, and the only time I use office is when my coworkers infrequently send me something locked in an Office document. Plenty of non-technical coworkers are addicted to it, but there's no need, because it's awful.
The Office programs are an ancient, bloated mess with an impossibly convoluted UI that to one uses more than a small share of.
The styles in Word and PowerPoint are never consistent: the bullets in lists never really match, fonts change randomly without reason, &c. These are intelligent people who have used this garbage for actual decades, and the WYSIWYG lie just results in a sloppy mess.
Even Microsoft wants everyone to stop using the desktop versions, and rent it from the cloud, which can be done from any OS.
For years, there was progress in moving governments away from implicitly endorsing Microsoft, and toward the simpler (but often still overcomplicated) OpenOffice/LibreOffice formats, and Microsoft engaged in some pretty shady behavior to stop it.
Markdown is better for documents, or maybe HTML, or LaTeX via LyX or something. Databases and legitimate file formats are better for data, with scripts for formulas. There are many simple alternatives around, but the addiction is so automatic and insidious, I can't tell you how often over twenty years I've gotten screenshots pasted into an empty Word document rather than just sending the image.
It's obviously all performative nonsense at this point.
If moral acts were determined by intent rather than by impact, the road to hell wouldn't be so thoroughly paved.
As I said earlier, good luck, I wish you well.
My point was more about the fact that voting in our FPTP system, mathematically, is an act not subject to the same "black & white" fallacy label as a discussion about who is the best candidate, because it actually is a choice between the top two candidates, which is why splitting the vote has been an enduring strategy.
But your illustration about the Fallacy fallacy—that is to say that even if something were a fallacy, that doesn't in itself mean it is untrue—is also a fair point.