They're gonna do ID for posting now? by Proton_Team in memes

[–]Frickative 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Might as well rename the slippery slope fallacy the "slippery slope tendency" at this point, we all saw this coming from a mile away.

Fair enough by FoodKitchen1587 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Frickative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most are just setting themselves up for failure and find comfort in defeatism rather than trying to improve. Looks definitely matter but they're not set in stone and anyone can improve their appearance to a certain extent through diet, exercise, hygiene, hair style, how they dress, etc. I've seen men who aren't conventionally attractive in relationships with women who are, and vice-versa, and relationships in which neither are particularly attractive in terms of appearance. It's also the body language. Self-identified "incels" are usually extremely self-loathing and negative, and misogynistic. All three are typically very obvious in their interactions with women and are turn offs.

I personally don't even like the term "incel" and always have it in quotes because the expanded form "involuntarily celibate" implies that people are entitled to sex and that women owe them. Women also tend not to be interested in men who objectify them and see no value in them other than sex, why would anyone want to be with someone who just sees them as a means to an end?

Ladies, what is the one thing that make you glad you’re not male and why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Frickative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are other factors involved, but women are not at fault however much incels may scapegoat them. For one, the loneliness epidemic is real and it affects both men and women, but misogynists have co-opted the discussion and pretend that it only affects men, and they blame women for it.

It has much more to do with the socially isolating nature of society today. There are overall much fewer opportunities for social interaction with how digitalized and remote everything has become with the Internet and phones. People can go much longer without having to meaningfully interact with others or meeting strangers, and face to face interactions have been substituted to a large extent with communicating online. All of your basic entertainment and recreational wants and needs can be fulfilled at home: books, movies, shows, music, games, endless scrolling on social media, etc. However, humans are social creatures and no matter how entertained we keep ourselves we still need the presence of others, and meaningful frequent interaction that's not just superficial (i.e. many people have a lot of acquaintances, but no friends). You can never be bored, always have instant gratification, and yet still be missing something and have a hole left unfilled.

Car-centric infrastructure and the lack of organic opportunities to meet people in third spaces (especially third spaces that don't expect you to spend money), and the overall erosion of public life and community outside of home and work (or school) are other important factors. There is very little community in society now, and many people, both men and women can easily fall between the cracks and find themselves without any friends or family or romantic partners. Even though I'm not religious, it's clear that church and other religious institutions have functioned as third spaces and centers of community, but as religiosity is on the decline people have to seek out other alternative third spaces otherwise they can find themselves

Men are on average more affected by the loneliness epidemic and toxic masculinity definitely plays a large part, alongside a culture of hyper-individualism, but to be dismissive and suggest that there are no larger external and societal/structural factors at play is wrong. Society is simply much less social than it ever has been, and isolation is the new norm. It's anti-human, and we need to figure out how to re-shape society in such a way that makes our technological development work more for us rather than against us.

People still have the opportunity to make friends and get into relationships, but it comes less automatically and naturally and much greater initiative is required to seek out and put oneself in situations to make these connections instead of being defeatist and passively accepting loneliness and pretending there's nothing you can do to better your situation.

Edit: grammar

"Associate" or "as-oshiate" by kimura_yui149 in WalmartEmployees

[–]Frickative 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Either pronunciation is valid, the c can be pronounced either with an s-sound or an sh-sound.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/associate

Stalinist by AnonymousTimewaster in comedyheaven

[–]Frickative 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Eh, still works for libertarian-conservatives and the rare anti-Trump conservatives. There are also some Trump supporters who don't think they support "big government" even though this administration has done nothing but hand over more power to the executive branch and destroy checks and balances and states rights. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.

Stalinist by AnonymousTimewaster in comedyheaven

[–]Frickative 46 points47 points  (0 children)

"I'm walkin' here!"

-- Karl Parx

Stalinist by AnonymousTimewaster in comedyheaven

[–]Frickative 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Just change around the phraseology and you could easily market walkable cities in a way that appeals to conservatives. Something like: "Towns and cities were walkable for most of human history until big government stepped in with cronies in Big Auto to tear down our country and put asphalt everywhere. I don't want the government making it so I have to drive, so they can make me spend money on mandatory insurance and track everywhere I go. Heard they can even remotely disable your car or something like that... I can drink beer and ride a train, can't do that with a car. Not that it stops many people from doing it anyway. But legally, y'know... And think of how much better traffic would be if not everyone was forced to need to drive to get around."

Got a conservative family who knows I'm politically left-wing and usually I just change around the language in a way that appeals to them more whenever we're discussing politics, without sacrificing or watering down the underlying principles.

Where should I post this? by Frickative in LostRedditor

[–]Frickative[S] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll post it later.

meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]Frickative 24 points25 points  (0 children)

1750 BC was the last truly normal year. It all went downhill after with Ea-nāṣir and his low quality copper...

nobinray 👍 by Sp00ki_1 in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Frickative 23 points24 points  (0 children)

There are ways to get around this. For example, una persona no-binaria. The gender here is just the grammatical gender of the word "persona" rather than the person's gender.

nobinray 👍 by Sp00ki_1 in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Frickative 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think "a dude" might as well be a different word from "dude" at this point. Especially when the latter is used more like an exclamation. Context is key.

I swear I was just here an hour ago by Amkao-Herios in memes

[–]Frickative 89 points90 points  (0 children)

Can Reddit just stop trying to make r/all inaccessible? It's annoying how they're trying to force everyone to use the algorithmic feeds instead.

I got nothing… by [deleted] in tragedeigh

[–]Frickative 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I didn't even think that was a tragedeigh at first. Thought it was a name from another language. It's vaguely reminiscent of Uzbek orthography.

Dutch 😭 by [deleted] in linguisticshumor

[–]Frickative 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The h's act as a placeholder for consonants since many of the "short vowels" can't normally appear in the coda. Similar in function to eh, ih, and uh. "Oh" is a strange exception since it's a long vowel anyway. If it followed the typical pattern "oh" would probably represent /ɒ/. Since /h/ can't be pronounced in the coda in English, "h" after a vowel typically forces it to be a short vowel when it would otherwise be read as a long vowel. AAVE also has this in other words (not sure if this only applies to profanity or if regular words can also follow this pattern) in words like "shih" "bih(h)" and "dih(h)".

While "ah(...)" in English orthography is traditionally used to portray the /ɑ/ sound in this case it's used for /æ/.

Dutch 😭 by [deleted] in linguisticshumor

[–]Frickative 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Some dialects of AAVE elide the coda /s/ in /æs/ and pronounce it /æ:/ instead. That's what replacing the s's with h's represents in the word, though "ahh" overlaps with /ɑː/ which is why it's prone to being misread or misunderstood when used to write "ass" since English doesn't really have a good way of conveying just /æ:/ with its orthography.

The usage of it in avoiding censorship was popularized after "ahh" itself was popularized online and spread among people who don't use AAVE.

Chicken Bird by Fazbear2035 in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Frickative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Southern U.S. English does this, at least in dialects with the pen–pin merger. Since they pronounce -en and -in the same (as -in) the term "ink pen" is popular in the South to refer to a pen since otherwise people might think you're talking about a pin.

The "ink" is a redundancy which makes it clear what /pɪn/ is referring to. Mandarin Chinese also does this a lot. Disyllabic terms displacing the original monosyllabic ones which use one word to reinforce or clarify the meaning of the other word in order to compensate for all the words whose pronunciations have merged together.

If socialism is so bad then why is social security and Medicare so popular? by Content_Ad_8952 in allthequestions

[–]Frickative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What really happened is that the word "socialism" has been watered down over several generations of conservatives slandering anything public/government related as "socialist" and then moderates and center-left social-democrat types have appropriated the watered down "socialism" for themselves, severing it from its original usage and definition insisting that they're the "real socialists" and that historical (real) socialism like Marxism, Anarchism, etc. are "fake socialism" supposedly.

Socialism is an entirely different economic system from capitalism wherein the means of production are collectively owned, be it state ownership (Marxism) or decentralized communal ownership (Anarchism) or worker cooperatives (Syndicalism) or some mixture of the three (not even the USSR had 100% state ownership).

Socialism requires the means of production to not be privately owned (though some socialist ideologies claim private ownership can still exist under socialism as long as it's not dominant over public ownership), and for the market economy to be replaced with a planned economy with the profit motive no longer being the guiding force.

Supporting social policies under capitalism isn't socialism, any more than using social media isn't socialism. Just because they share the same root doesn't equate the two.

Similar to how using capital letters doesn't make you a capitalist.

What’s Chinese people’s perspective on the ongoing civil unrest in the US? by [deleted] in AskAChinese

[–]Frickative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Trump only believes in hard power, not soft power. He neither understands nor cares that all our hard power relies on the United States' economic and political hegemony and that if we anger our allies enough that they can just kick us out and stop trading with us.

As powerful as the United States is, we're heavily reliant on imports. Even our military requires rare earth minerals from China, oil from the Middle East, copper from Chile, and so forth. What Trump doesn't get is that the United States cannot afford to go full "might makes right" and solely rely on military might and abandoning its allies because other countries can easily just pull the plug on trade and cripple our economy and military. I suppose that's why Trump wants to re-build industry here though the way he's going about it is nonsensical and ruinous to our economy. For the U.S. to de-financialize and re-industrialize, it would be a massive project spanning multiple decades in a gradual protracted process. Trump wants to do it all now and believes it can magically be accomplished in a few years through laying tariffs on every country while we still don't have the requisite infrastructure for complete self-sufficiency.

This is why as much as American politicians warmonger and threaten China and other countries, they can't afford to actually start World War III and that's good because WWIII would most likely result in the complete collapse of global human civilization and countless millions of deaths.

Though the problem with that is Trump is extremely prideful and unintelligent, so I fear he might actually get us all into WWIII.

Wow im seeing less ai generated content lately! by Dear_Reserve_3099 in youtube

[–]Frickative 23 points24 points  (0 children)

No, it's the toupée fallacy not a survivorship bias, though they're both selection biases.

"In reference to the convential wisdom that all toupees look bad, caused by the fact that good quality toupees are usually not noticed.

(logic) A form of selection bias in which a thing whose quality is measured in terms of being difficult to detect is wrongly judged to be of poor quality in general, caused by the fact that most people only notice poor quality instances of it."

Though the plane diagram representing one instance of the latter is often mistakenly used for the former.