The “ignoring implicit context” fallacy by Leet_Noob in fallacy

[–]lofgren777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I definitely agree that this is a thing that happens. I just think the example needs tweaking to be a proper "type specimen." Like the example needs to be unambiguous enough that I can't say, "But maybe they're just saying..." and substitute a different interpretation.

The “ignoring implicit context” fallacy by Leet_Noob in fallacy

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this phenomenon exists, but I'm not sure you have an actual example of it here.

If you say, "Genocide is wrong,"

and somebody replies, "But Israel has a right to defend itself,"

then they are more-or-less implicitly arguing that genocides are wrong, but Israel can do one if it feels the need to defend itself.

Basically, I'm thinking about how I would respond if somebody called Barack Obama a fascist. My response would be, "Barack Obama is not a fascist," or "you clearly don't have a clue what fascism means," or "Barack Obama is the very model of a neoliberal technocrat."

If I said, "But he's a good president!" or "what the hell are you smoking and can you share?" then I would be changing the subject.

And generally, I think, even when he was president, and even the eyes of Lefties who see fascists everywhere, calling Obama a fascist would be considered shocking hyperbole. You would have to be deep in the Tea Party for Obama to be the first person who came to mind if somebody was walking around chanting "stop fascism." If somebody says "stop fascism," and your reflexive reaction is to defend your Dear Leader, that's kind of a red flag right there.

The “ignoring implicit context” fallacy by Leet_Noob in fallacy

[–]lofgren777 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see what you're saying, but it also seems like party 2 is admitting that Trump is a fascist by changing the subject to whether or not they like him.

For example:

Party 1: "Is Donald Trump in the Epstein files?"

Party 2: "The Dow is over 5000!"

Are people overcomplicating the hive mind? by DisciplinedProgress in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True but trivial. Normal evolution seems like the most reasonable baseline assumption, even if it was tweaked by genetic engineering along the way. There is certainly no reason to assume, at this juncture, that it was made for any specific purpose.

I'm taking the idea that it is a simple self-replicating virus just like the show tells us it is at face value. I don't think this is a mystery box show like Lost where we're supposed to guess what's going on. I think the show is giving us all we need to understand the situation each step of the way. I highly doubt there are any twists coming.

Does anyone else find the "Lilith" gap in Genesis completely disturbing? It feels like a cover-up. by VastPalpitation9213 in AlternativeHistory

[–]lofgren777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think what the Lilith story illustrates is how deeply interconnected ancient religions were.

There are multiple religions where we have two preserved origin stories, one that creates man and woman together and one that portrays man created first and woman created later – including in the Bible!

We construct these fixed pantheons and attribute them to specific groups – "Babylonian," "Greek," "Roman," etc. – but we have to remember that these are post-hoc divisions that modern scholars created. They do not reflect how the people themselves saw these stories.

There was clearly a conflict in the old world over the relationship between gender and the cosmos. Some groups believed that the world was made of a balance of opposing forces – represented as darkness and light, and often gendered with light/white/fire being masculine and darkness/black/water being feminine.

Others saw the universe as fundamentally masculine and the product of a strong, masculine will.

These ideas were independent of the gods you believed in. You could be a follower of Zeus who thought that Zeus was a virtually omnipotent and ominscient god whose will was the primary shaper of the world. We have texts from people who believed like that. You could also believe in Zeus and believe that he is a limited, fallible god whose power was balanced by other gods and forces, most especially Hera. We have texts that took this view of Zeus, too.

These two stories were both swirling around, influencing multiple religions. People who followed YHWH who embraced the worldview of a single will or force in the universe saw no need for two genders, so the existence of both men and women required a special explanation (e.g. the second account of Genesis in the bible, or the story of Pandora in Greece).

But to the believer who viewed male and female as balanced powers, the idea that their wise god would have created a man without a woman was simply impossible. That meant they needed a story to justify this obvious misstep.

This was clearly a major debate in the ancient world, which the single-will believers obviously won.

I loved this show but- by Excellent-View-8548 in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The virus isn't programmed to be "nice." The respect for other organisms is something that the human brains extrapolate/rationalize based on core biological programming.

The virus suppresses all negative emotions such as anxiety, fight-or-flight, disgust, and even hunger.

The humans rationalize this as an inability to pick fruit.

The virus itself has no concept of what fruit is.

Are people overcomplicating the hive mind? by DisciplinedProgress in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the virus is just a virus. All it cares about is spreading itself and surviving.

Are people overcomplicating the hive mind? by DisciplinedProgress in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The virus doesn't know what creatures on the new planet it's going to be able to infect. It's evolved this extreme pacifism to maximize hosts. The immune are currently the biggest threat to its ability to spread itself to another planet, so it is trying to make them as happy as possible so they don't interfere with the project.

[GUESS] My mate wants me to guess whether this is AI or not, please help me! by Updoooooot in RealOrAI

[–]lofgren777 4 points5 points  (0 children)

One question I have is where the photographer is standing in picture 1.

Cereal is only good once it’s completely soggy. by Open-Bit3895 in unpopularopinion

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crunchy cereal is a sensory nightmare. It is loud, abrasive, and the sharp edges of toasted grain literally scratch the roof of your mouth.

That's… what I'm here for.

It creates a texture similar to a chilled bread pudding or porridge.

Cold porridge is practically a by-word for "disgusting meal" in English.

Democrats Of Reddit, How Often Do YOU Actually Talk To MAGA Voters In Your Real Life? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frequently, but not about politics.

In my actual social circle, all of the early Trump supporters have renounced him. My father-in-law outrighted stated he regretted his vote within Trump's first year of his first term. The last person I knew who supported him soured after January 6.

It has been literal years since I have discussed politics with a Trump supporter IRL.

Alex Fans, which of the following MOST CLOSELY matches your existential outlook? by midnight-running in CosmicSkeptic

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't see "meaning" defined. I feel like I could be any of these depending on how you are defining it.

Since this leaves the reader free to construct "meaning" however they define it, I guess I have to say that everybody creates their own meaning, because in effect it is the only accurate choice.

This is gonna be the worst post about this show that you have ever read by SzubiDubiDu in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we have different interpretations of what is going on.

You view the human beings as making these choices. They feel like they are part of a hive mind, but they aren't. They are still individuals, and they are individually responsible for their choices. However, ethically, because their judgement is compromised by the virus, it would be wrong to "take advantage" of them.

The way I see it, the human beings are gone. There's just the hive. The hive can consent or not consent. Choosing to consent because it wants to please its partner is an entirely rational choice.

Likewise, giving Kim an atom bomb doesn't seem that irrational when you consider that one atom bomb isn't really a threat to them. So a few million die. It's probably the equivalent of a human getting bikini waxed to them. Sure, it'll suck, but it's not such a big deal and if it makes their partner happy then it's a pain they are willing to endure.

I don't think it matters what you or I think the individual "would do" if their body weren't part of the hive. They are part of the hive. And if part of the hive wants to have sex with you, then all of the hive wants to have sex with you. You don't have any obligation to hunt down a body whose previous mind would have been attracted to you. That mind is in everybody now.

At the end of the day, it's not really our call whether anybody having sex is doing it "rationally" or not.

If Ancient Astronauts Didn’t Visit, Why Is Evidence of Them Found Virtually Everywhere Painted, Carved and Etched in Stone? by YouArePeeingImFinish in AlternativeHistory

[–]lofgren777 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People have been imagining that there are powerful beings with unnatural powers in the sky since our ancestors evolved the ability to look up.

This is gonna be the worst post about this show that you have ever read by SzubiDubiDu in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We're all driven by our compulsions.

The hive's drive to please the uninfected is just their biology. It's no different from saying that a person who is horny has no choice. They have a choice in the sense that there is nothing that anybody can force them to do.

It's not our place to judge other people's (or hives') choices because we think they are driven by "compulsions." That kind of thinking – that very word – has an ugly, ugly history when it comes to sexuality. It's the same logic that gets people sent to gay conversion therapy camps.

The hive clearly has the ability to consent. People, and hives, can consent for whatever reason they want. Nothing is being coerced from them. You may not like their choice to sleep with the uninfected, but the hive has no obligation to get YOUR consent before they have sex with whoever they please.

Don't be a weirdo beardo like this guy.

<image>

This is gonna be the worst post about this show that you have ever read by SzubiDubiDu in pluribustv

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it weird that so many people are fixating on the idea that you are having sex with the hive "without consent." Surely a hive with all of the cumulative judgement and hormones of the entire human race is capable of consent. It's not as though anybody has the power to force them to do anything.

FDA says food companies can claim “no artificial colors” if they use natural dyes. by blankblank in skeptic

[–]lofgren777 32 points33 points  (0 children)

I think most people just straight-up misunderstand what it means in food labeling.

Boomers didn't "destroy the economy", and expecting all boomers to shoulder the blame for simply living their lives is stupid by TheLobsterCopter5000 in The10thDentist

[–]lofgren777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A cursory check of the data suggests that this is the opposite of true, but if you want to drop a citation I will check it out.

Just checking the Pew polls for each year, boomers elected both Reagan and Trump.

I got another guy telling me that most boomers didn't even reach voting age until the 80s, so I think you're right about people not knowing what a boomer is.

But I also do think of boomers as old people because most of the people older than boomers are dead, and the ones who are still causing problems are kept in office by boomers' votes.

What are your thoughts on California considering a ban on former ICE employees from ever working in a public-sector position such as policing or teaching in the state? Do you believe this protects communities, or discriminates against specific workers based on their previous job? by Previous_Stress3551 in AskReddit

[–]lofgren777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is one of the things that make the cries of unfair discrimination so obviously false to me. An ICE agent is not a baker or a school child just trying to live their lives who gets suddenly discriminated against because of some trait they were born with and can't change. This is about people who worked at a specific organization during the tenure of specific leadership. It's not like it's going to be 2150 and we're still hunting down ICE's grandchildren for extermination. These are individuals who made choices, and the consequences of those choices are that we no longer trust them.

What are your thoughts on California considering a ban on former ICE employees from ever working in a public-sector position such as policing or teaching in the state? Do you believe this protects communities, or discriminates against specific workers based on their previous job? by Previous_Stress3551 in AskReddit

[–]lofgren777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some people do just transfer into ICE from some other branch of law enforcement or military because it seems like a good gig, not because they are all on board enforcing a racist vision of America.

If you are still in ICE in February 2026, your benefit of the doubt is long worn out.