But what do the wheels represent in this visual metaphor? Are they having sex with their shoes on? What’s the sky supposed to be? I’m just not comfortable laughing at ambiguity.
I am the head of a large banking app / web in Europe. We have about 40 MiO logins per month, 39 (edit: millions) are done with the app.
Personally I would prefer the web version of everything important like banking always - but the customers are all preferring apps. So yea guess where I allocate my budget.
It was a small community dedicated to shit talking another community, neither of which I was part of. A few posts showed up in my feed and one had a take I thought was kinda unreasonable, so I commented. I had a nice discussion with one community member, but OP came in hot. After a half-hearted effort to try to defuse, and being blatantly lied to in a few replies, I just told him he was a conniving liar.
A few days later I tried to comment on a different post, but I was banned.
Not a big deal, I’m not invested in either community, but it made me think of the struggles growing Lenny from these small nascent communities, into more more mature communities.
That’s not an ad hominem, though. If someone says something, and you dismiss it and call them a liar, thats an ad hominem. If they tell a bunch of lies, and you label them a liar, that’s not an ad hominem. That’s accurately describing the person based on their choices.
Calling someone a liar is absolutely and always an ad hominem, because it labels their character rather than pursuing their argument.
You can call their words lies and attack those words and their intent, but once you start labelling you are looking to subvert it and attack character by assuming malicious intent.
Which you’re free to assume, but that doesn’t excuse you from the fallacy.
If someone repeatedly and probably tells untruths, and then doubles down when confronted with evidence, I’m ok making that leap to calling them a liar.
It’s okay to be okay with it, it’s even better when there is convincing evidence. I’m just saying you can skip the fallacy by attacking their argument/lie, which you have to do regardless if you want to conject that they are liar.
However it still implies that they are a liar in some habitual or further-reaching sense. This is not easy to prove. Did they lie before? What were those lies and how can you prove them so? Will they lie in the future? How can you know for sure? These are the questions that make it a fallacious label as it frames character rather than argument, and it just seems a bit … dull and irrelevant, when you can attack the lie just as easily.
If something is posted that is provably false, it is provably false. It doesn’t matter if the poster regularly posts accurate things about another subject. The post would still be provably false, even if the poster was normally truthful about barley.
Imo, if someone wants to be seen as honest, the onus is on them to act honestly. If you act in a way that’s dishonest, people will likely acknowledge that you’re acting in a way that’s dishonest. If their only experience of you is through you being dishonest, it only makes sense that they’ll think that you’re dishonest.
No one is owed being considered as an honest and trustworthy person. If you do lie, you should expect the people who you lied to to no longer trust you. Why would they? That’s not a reasonable expectation to have.
Being considered as an honest person is one of those things that you kind of have to do to earn. If you act dishonestly, it would be silly to expect other people to still consider you as an honest person. You don’t get to mislead people and then become upset when they don’t believe you anymore. That isn’t rational.
It’s pretty easy to avoid being labaled as a liar online, tbh. Verify your stuff before you post it. Don’t double down against solid evidence, especially without any of your own. Don’t make stuff up. Accept and acknowledge that you can be wrong sometimes, and strive for the correct answer instead of the one that “wins” the argument for you.
Misinformation is dangerous, and it deserves to be called out. Misinformation can cause a lot more harm than someone occasionally being called a “liar” online by a random stranger.
I would also argue that most people probably haven’t really had problems with being called a “liar” online.
If the misinformation is about how many seeds an orange has, people probably won’t care too much, as it doesn’t really cause a lot of harm. That type of misinformation usually just gets passively corrected.
If the misinformation ends with someone else suffering, it will likely get called out harshly, and probably deservedly so.
I don’t know what’s happened to cause you to dislike people being called liars to this extent, but there is a good reason for people doing that sometimes. I’m not going to stalk your page or comments, so idk where you personally fall on that. Calling someone a “liar” is similar to calling someone “dishonest”.
Sorry, but that’s crap. Questioning the credibility of a liar is not automatically fallacious reasoning or an ad hominem. Attacking their character instead of arguing against their points is an ad hominem fallacy. Pointing out the consistency of lies from a single source and then extrapolating out to question the validity of future statements of fact is rational, logical, and reasonable. It’s perfectly valid to label a liar when they repeatedly tell lies, as long as you can support the label by proving they are lying.
You get tracking cookies, local storages, IndexedDBs, service workers, cache storages, filesystems, webSQLs, pixel trackers and if you are nice enough, also an browser hijacker or you are part of our great botnet community, as a little gift.
I think it’s more the idea that people who chase “the one,” tend to be pretty toxic. It’s much important to focus on finding a partner who treats you well then thinking there’s some sort of magic to the whole thing
No but a lot of young people obsessed with finding “the one,” or “true love” put the entire concept on a pedestal. Which is more the point I think OP is making
You’re having to read between the lines a hell of a lot to assume that. I’m just working with what’s there. To me, true love is just love. Simple as that.
I think the whole true love thing is bullshit and I am in a very happy longterm relationship. But it’s just love. Love is the feeling that it is. There is no true version of it. All love is the same. But relationships are not built on love alone. The true love concept makes it come across to me that way though. That if things don’t work out your love just wasn’t true enough. You just have to love harder and truer next time. It’s even worse when the concept gets extended to there only being one true love per lifetime or whatever.
It’s not that. Imo all love is created equal. It’s the other factors that make things work or not work. Compatibility with the partner, how hard you try, how much you try, how mature you are. Honesty, trust. But also external factors such as how easy or hard life is at that time for you. Even the greatest relationships can fall apart in the shittiest of times. Doesn’t make the love less true.
conversely, I’d argue that subjective feelings are always true - but they may disagree. I can be angry at you for no good reason, doesn’t mean I’m not angry, it just means I shouldn’t be in your opinion, but I should be in mine. All those things can be true simultaneously.
To add to that from my experience I can even be angry for no good reason and at the same time logically think I shouldn’t be. Even that doesn’t make the feelings untrue. It just makes me know they might not be justified or reasonable. And feelings can be all that.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.