I guess they’re just really bad at sarcasm 🤷

The world where Putin is saying that it belongs to Russia and Trump is Putin’s bitch. AKA possibly this one.

There’s no way to “invade” the US

There will be if Trump gives Putin Alaska. Which he PROBABLY won’t, but the fact that it’s not a 100% certainty is not ideal…

Coalition partners the National Party and New Zealand First are only supporting the legislation through the first of three readings. Both parties have said they will not support it to become legislation, meaning it will almost certainly fail.

What fresh performative bigotry politics hell is this?

They don’t even pretend to want to pass it, they just want the excuse to be racist bastards without consequences??

That’s because you’re overlooking the fact that stupid people mingle with other people whether they want to or not.

If you don’t have at least a handful of truly idiotic coworkers and neighbors, you’re probably a self-employed hermit…

But on the minus side, other people don’t have the choice to completely avoid those dumb people and thus minimize their risk of infection.

If they did, covid wouldn’t have been a tenth as bad as it was/is.

True, but on the minus side, dumb people actively seeking out the infected milk would artificially increase the instances and thus the spread.

Billionaires and hectomillionaire shareholders are pretty much the same thing when it comes to enshittification.

It might not be racist from the top down like the husk formerly known as Twitter is now, but it’ll enshittify and be racist from the bottom up nonetheless.

I’ve got some… Nope! Not gonna finish that sentence! 😄

I wonder whether @[email protected] knew and based his name on it or it’s just a coincidence 🤔

BlueSky might not be racist YET, but it will be when all of the establishment media migrate there and the dumb masses follow.

Besides, it’ll be enshittificated sooner or later like all corporations with shareholders.

I know, just teasing you about the ambiguous way you phrased it 😁

I don’t think they accept donations in the form of ideas about Elon Musk…

I want him convicted in a court of law. Legitimately.

And I want a pet pig that flies. There’s nothing legitimate about how the US courts treat the rich and powerful.

Even the ones that get convicted tend to go to cushy Club Fed prison resorts unless they mess with the money of other rich and powerful people like Bernie Madoff did.

The poster way up the stack did not clarify at all. They posted “reducto ad absurdum” as if that was the end of it.

Perhaps they were using that as a shorthand for “reducto ad absurdum fallacy” and, not unreasonably, expecting that people would infer ad much from context.

Either way, we have discussed this to death and you’re still beating the horse, if you will forgive the purposefully mixed metaphor.

Even if you won’t, it’s too late now, so we all must find a way to cope. Have a good day.

Reducto ad absurdum fallacy = reducto ad absurdum used fallaciously. That’s all.

I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you.

So that’s where you want the goal posts now?

I specifically agreed that reducto ad absurdum isn’t inherently a fallacy in the first sentence of my first reply to you.

And that’s my whole point

It is now that your original point that “there’s no such thing as a reducto ad absurdum fallacy” has been shot to pieces 🙄

People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.

That’s the case with almost every tool of every kind that people have access to.

Especially in the case of language, people are constantly using it wrong, and while I genuinely applaud your intention of projecting a useful tool from being dulled by misuse, the battle is an uphill one to begin with.

Don’t make it even worse by misstating your position and then defending that mistake like it’s the Korean border.

If they’re guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that

I JUST told you about how hyperbole and slippery slope arguments aren’t inherently fallacious. Just like reducto ad absurdum arguments, they’re fallacies when used fallaciously and otherwise NOT fallacies.

Is that clear enough, or do you want me to Ask Figaro?

You’re fundamentally ignoring or misunderstanding what a fallacy is. Here’s the dictionary definition:

Note that, by any of those 3 definitions, the argument that it’s absurd to take Ben & Jerry’s freedom of speech seriously because Trump is a fallacy.

Just likely a slippery slope argument is valid when a certain course of action legitimately leads to increasingly negative outcomes (such as for example treating Trump as a serious candidate in the first place in 2015), a usually valid argument technique is fallacious when used fallaciously.

And in case you still believe that nothing can be a fallacy without having the word “fallacy” in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia, I invite you to look up “hyperbole” and “slippery slope” there.