6 ms·

wow this is fascinating, taking the veneer of something in the tautological space and using it as sheep's clothing over something known to be a wolf. There's so

wow this is fascinating, taking the veneer of something in the tautological space and using it as sheep's clothing over something known to be a wolf. There's something curious about this form of misleading that deserves to be identified and named to be called out in future instances.

dweekly 5y ago
"Foods containing sugar have been found to save lives in a number of studies." "Regular smoking use is associated with lower BMI, which is shown to correlate with improved heart health and lower mortality rates." "Use of fossil fuels powers a number of ecology-preserving tasks, allowing us to care for the environment in a way we could not without this amazing source of Earth-loving fuel."
- gerry_shaw 5y ago
  You are far too good at crafting these passages.
  - dgs_sgd 5y ago
    It's fairly easy if you understand the meaning of "can be true". There can be countless instances where it's not true but if you find just _one_ instance where it's true, then your "can be true" statement must be true.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  Love it. It still needs a name. Here let me try: Disproportionate benefit insinuation error: Implying (without explicitly stating that it has more benefits than disadvantages because that would be a disprovable lie) that because something has some benefit, it is overall helpful. Or just "plausible deniability"- factually stating the existence of a beneficial tree, but omitting mention of the harmful forest Or just "cherry-picking" Or to cover cases where a harm is insinuated/emphasized in the same way in order to discredit something (see: literally all the antivax data, antiscience, antimedicine... "trust doctors, you mean like the ones who prescribed thalidomide?")... "Misrepresenting the forest"
  - jxramos 5y ago
    maybe a good contraction would be a disbeni
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hikerclimber1 5y ago
Everything is subjective. Especially laws. So everyone should revolt and over throw the us government.
javajosh 5y ago
It has a name, its called "sophistry", and the practitioners "sophists". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
- jahnu 5y ago
  Nice short episode on them here for those who are interested https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists
- rwnspace 5y ago
  Gorgias was perhaps the most well-known ancient Sophist, and is also the namesake of one of Plato's Dialogues, which happens to be one of my favourites. Highly recommend reading the above, and into sophistry and rhetoric more generally, if you're the sort that gets annoyed by modern bullshit, and wants a set of names and tactics to defend the sanctity (and sanity) of your opinions.
- Socketier 5y ago
  Once you notice the "Weasel words" [1] you'll never see a press release like this one the same way again. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This is called creating a narrative by cherry picking facts. This is what the media does, and is why so many people (most Americans per Pew) distrust them.
hundreddaysoff 5y ago
Disingenuous non sequitur?

dweekly 5y ago

"Foods containing sugar have been found to save lives in a number of studies." "Regular smoking use is associated with lower BMI, which is shown to correlate with improved heart health and lower mortality rates." "Use of fossil fuels powers a number of ecology-preserving tasks, allowing us to care for the environment in a way we could not without this amazing source of Earth-loving fuel."

gerry_shaw 5y ago
You are far too good at crafting these passages.
- dgs_sgd 5y ago
  It's fairly easy if you understand the meaning of "can be true". There can be countless instances where it's not true but if you find just _one_ instance where it's true, then your "can be true" statement must be true.
pmarreck 5y ago
Love it. It still needs a name. Here let me try: Disproportionate benefit insinuation error: Implying (without explicitly stating that it has more benefits than disadvantages because that would be a disprovable lie) that because something has some benefit, it is overall helpful. Or just "plausible deniability"- factually stating the existence of a beneficial tree, but omitting mention of the harmful forest Or just "cherry-picking" Or to cover cases where a harm is insinuated/emphasized in the same way in order to discredit something (see: literally all the antivax data, antiscience, antimedicine... "trust doctors, you mean like the ones who prescribed thalidomide?")... "Misrepresenting the forest"
- jxramos 5y ago
  maybe a good contraction would be a disbeni
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

hikerclimber1 5y ago

Everything is subjective. Especially laws. So everyone should revolt and over throw the us government.

javajosh 5y ago

It has a name, its called "sophistry", and the practitioners "sophists". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

jahnu 5y ago
Nice short episode on them here for those who are interested https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists
rwnspace 5y ago
Gorgias was perhaps the most well-known ancient Sophist, and is also the namesake of one of Plato's Dialogues, which happens to be one of my favourites. Highly recommend reading the above, and into sophistry and rhetoric more generally, if you're the sort that gets annoyed by modern bullshit, and wants a set of names and tactics to defend the sanctity (and sanity) of your opinions.
Socketier 5y ago
Once you notice the "Weasel words" [1] you'll never see a press release like this one the same way again. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

mensetmanusman 5y ago

This is called creating a narrative by cherry picking facts. This is what the media does, and is why so many people (most Americans per Pew) distrust them.

hundreddaysoff 5y ago

Disingenuous non sequitur?