VoxAdActa

Who told you that? Name, quote, date, and source, please.

All of my bitterness and cynicism in my previous post is actually, now that I sit down and think about it, motivated by concern. For you, for our community, for all of us. I've gotten to a point where I have nothing left to fight with; I can only use the privilege that comes with my specific level of social function and direction of hyperfocus to hide (as much as possible) and pass as a slightly-weird member of NT culture.

As worried as I am that you and others will come to the same fate, I'm also glad that there are still people with some fight in them, who love talking about the community and trying to spread their knowledge with those outside of it. You're doing a good thing. I just worry about you while you're doing it, and I'm not hopeful that it will help in the long run.

But I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

We are literally “in peril” either way.

Yes, you're right.

How about NT have some personal fucking growth and acknowledge that they have not given half a shit about how much ND people have contributed to society while being shat on CONSTANTLY for being socially different.

Great idea. Will never happen. Not in a million giggity years. It's like saying the best way to stop mountain lion attacks is to teach mountain lions to not attack.

Treating NTs and the society they built like they are all rational actors who give a fuck is the most dangerous, naive, and stupid thing I ever did in my life. We must treat them like impersonal, implacable forces of nature that cannot be educated or reasoned with, only prepared for so that we can mitigate their inevitable destructive effects on our lives.

I spent most of my life trying to "inform" the NT-society hurricane about how much it hurts me. It's pointless. Give up, spend your energy and your focus on figuring out how to protect yourself from them. The results on your everyday life will be far better.

The keyword doesn't make the statements credible. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The description of the fallacy is just as credible as the name of the fallacy. You're doing the same thing I'm criticizing in other people; thinking that the latin words are the important part, rather than the concept of what makes a fallacy.

The definition of a word isn't in doubt if the word itself isn't listed on the same line.

Probably has its roots from way back in the day so that women couldnt effectively run away from the men and get very far.

Can't speak to Muslim culture, but European culture way back in the day didn't want women riding horses because of sex.

There are a lot of branches on that tree, but the biggest one is that since horseback was believed to be capable of rupturing the hymen (hymen science has progressed quite a bit since I last looked into it, so I don't know if that's actually a thing), it was the same thing as having sex for women. They believed that women got sexual pleasure from it (which, I guess, was a bad thing), that they'd start craving horses as lovers instead of humans, and all sorts of weird shit that only twisted, perpetually horny dudes would think of.

So the sidesaddle was invented. It allowed women to ride horses while, literally and figuratively, keeping their legs closed.

Unfortunately, riding sidesaddle is a massive pain in the ass, so that fad didn't last long. Maybe about fifty years or so of general popularity (because, obviously, you can still get a sidesaddle and learn to ride in it today, if you want, for whatever reason) over the course of all horse-domestication history.

Of course, like so many things from European history, this primarily applied to rich/noble people. The poor didn't have the luxury of giving a fuck about most of it.

It’s also difficult to point it out when someone is doing it. Pointing out that they are participating in a fallacy never turns out how we want hahaha

This graphic would be more effective if it didn't include the fallacy names at the end of the commandments. It's not the concepts that get laughed at, it's the keywords they've been trained to jump on and make fun of. They don't understand the concepts behind the keywords at all.

Dumbass culture has done excellent marketing/propaganda work in making the word "fallacy" a joke. Fortunately, there's an easy workaround: you just don't use the word or any of its terminology. They can't tell you're accusing them of a logical fallacy if you don't actually use the handful of words they've learned to meet with thought-terminating cliches.

Examples (from "more polite" to "less polite"):

Incorrect - "That's a false dichotomy!"

Correct - "What makes you think those are the only two possibilities?"

Incorrect - "I won't fall for your straw man argument."

Correct - "Nobody but you actually believes that. That's not even what we're talking about."

Incorrect - "That's not an argument, it's just an appeal to popularity."

Correct - "Most of us grew out of the 'but moooom, everyone else is doing it!' at about 14." or "So if everyone in this thread thinks it's cool to just punch you in the nutsack, we should go ahead and do it because that makes it right? I'll go first."

They won't recognize your rebuttal if it doesn't include one or more of those keywords right up front. Like an AI chat bot, they don't understand the meaning of words they're criticizing (or, often, even the words they're saying). They just know that [X]% of the time, saying [Y] when someone else says [Q] ends the argument and gets them upvotes.

It's a lot like how a song can't be included in the Christian Music genre if it doesn't drop the word "Jesus" every second line, no matter how Christian the lyrics are otherwise.

On Kbin, at the bottom of the comment, under "more", there's an option to "copy URL". You can use that to link back to this comment next time you have the chance to roo.

I don't know if it works the same way on Lemmy.

So if someone is not familiar with your social rituals then they are not to be trusted?

Yes. This is the basis of pretty much all Western human interaction, from the observations and data I have collected over the last 30+ years. It is the root of all inter-group conflicts in the country, from the lofty halls of politics to the "that group's not really a metal band!" subreddit pettiness.

Humans are ritualistic and their interactions are so rigid as to be almost mechanistic, when you get down to the base of them. Every person isn't so much a unique individual as they are a unique combination of common parts, and their communication ceremonies reflect that.

Because someone who doesn't want to shake hands because it is taboo in their culture is the same thing as someone refusing to check the flaps before takeoff.

Yes. That is exactly correct. If you don't do the ritual right (or right enough, within a margin of specification), you will not be trusted.

Does it make rational sense from the perspective of a sapient being capable of examining their own actions? Fuck no. But that's the world we live in. We refuse to learn it and adapt to it at our peril.

Oh, but you do! I'm one of those autistic people who can't fucking stand flaming red notification icons and have to make them go away.

There's no way to turn off the notification without either clicking "Ignore" or "Reply" (maybe it's "Accept"). It doesn't go away just from reading the message. I even tried to disable the element in my browser, which worked, but then it disabled the normal notification icon too.

Jesus, is this what we're doing with Lemmy? Posting memes older than my kids?

a fucking chat on fucking reddit are you kidding me what?

RIGHT? AND, AND! It's a chat where you can't get rid of the bright flaming red notification until you make the neigh-irreversible decision to either shun a person forever or reply to them.

other than the knowledge of and conformity to social rituals.

That's exactly the point.

What is the benefit of screening people through social rituals?

You know instantly who's part of your culture. Whether or not they are a part of your sub-group within that culture. Whether or not they are capable of interacting with strangers in a way that isn't frightening or disturbing (try asking a guy on meth "So, how about this weather?").

If you respond to a social ritual with hostility, that tells the other person exactly what they want to know about you. They know to avoid you, that you are not "friendly", meaning that you are not a person who can be trusted with other, more important/complex social rituals.

You're seriously asking "What's the point of testing the flaps when the plane is on the ground? It's not flying. What do I need to know about the flaps when we're not flying? It's just me and the plane lying to each other?"