So there’s this thing people do, it’s harmless enough, but it also sort of hints at a completely incoherent style of thinking. It is absolutely unfair to judge people by random shit they write casually, after all I write like 3 geeked out baboons stacked atop one and other and yet I am a noble and refined rat.
Nonetheless I’m a judgy shit so I do. Ok so the thing? It’s when people use a quote or situation from fiction as a predictor of what will happen in reality. A concrete example from earlier today paraphrased:
p1: I think blah blah thing will happen
p2: Ah but remember men in black? a person is reasonable, people are dumb panicky animals
me: teakettle noises
The causality is utterly confused, MiB cannot be used as evidence, it is written that way because the writer wanted a character to say that. It’s possible a writer wanted a character to say that because the writer believed it to be true, but it’s also possible that it was included for many other reasons.
screeeeeeeeeee
Anyway, share your thoughts. Also your own ridiculous rhetoric irritations.
I get what you mean, but “people are dumb panicky animals” is more of an aphorism on the human condition than an event, so it doesn’t seem like the best example.
If it’s obviously true you don’t need to support it. “The sky is blue” is not annoying. “remember MiB, the sky was blue in it. The sky is blue” is a deranged way of expressing it.
Also I contest that this is obviously true. Massed humans are generally pretty sedate and if anything more predictable, cities are surprisingly stable for example.
Furthermore, “the sky is blue” is not in the least bit controversial, whereas what exactly is blue needs to be supported.
damn I hate green apparently