this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
843 points (97.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
7687 readers
2549 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
LOGICAL FALLACY - AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.
If X, then Y does not imply if Y, then X.
Calling someone a pet name is not a matter of logic.
Of course not. It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership that is the logical fallacy.
The argument is:
Your interpretation seems to be:
Which is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
That's OP's claim. My interpretation is that he gave Simon the nickname out of affection not domination
No it’s not.
OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Not that all entities that give nicknames are cults.
But your second statement makes me realize that you likely have an inherent bias that is preventing you from seeing the logic involved.
Post-Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc Fallacy. "Cults give nicknames, therefore if you give someone a nickname you're a cult" doesn't logically follow.
Casual Fallacy. The existence of individual bias does nothing to affirm or reject a claim
If we were weighting on bias, your extreme reaction to a casual anecdote would disqualify your observations immediately.