5 ms·

Or just goomba fallacy

by knollimar 6mo ago

onemoresoop 6mo ago
[flagged]
sermah 6mo ago
til https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
- SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
  That’s kind of just strawman with an origin story isn’t it?
  - _diyar 6mo ago
    No because the goomba is the average of two real opinions, and the strawman is a distortion/reduction of any opinion such that its easy to argue against.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
      Ah, ok, so two real opinions made into a distortion. Right, I see how very dissimilar to an origin story of a strawman that is…
      - nkingsy 6mo ago
        If I only had a brain...
    - tadfisher 6mo ago
      More like a superposition of two opinions.
      - Cthulhu_ 6mo ago
        Schrodinger's Goomba?
  - wuliwong 6mo ago
    I think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.
    - Jensson 6mo ago
      > Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app. Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so. That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are different sets of people you can still tell they are biased since they never appear in the threads where its obvious they are in the wrong. For example, lets say in a thread where a white cop shoots a black guy you find a lot of republicans say "this is just statistics, nothing to see here". Then in another thread where a black cop shoots a white guy republicans pour in and argue this must be racism and we should investigate! Maybe it isn't the same set of people, but its still a strong sign of problematic bias that they only choose to speak up in those particular threads and not the others. Every political side everywhere does this, and that is why people started calling that out.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
        Is it true that they don't appear in the threads where you feel it's obvious they're in the wrong? Or do they just get upvoted less in those threads so you don't see it when they do appear?
      - jmalicki 6mo ago
        It's almost as if factions are made up of different people with different opinions in a loose alliance. But nah, clearly they're all goombas.
      - mothballed 6mo ago
  - scarecrowbob 6mo ago
    On some level, yes, but having words to describe sub-sets can be useful too. A "human" is just a "featherless biped", after all? I think the Goomba Fallacy captures something helpful to me- it's helpful to know the origin of a straw man if you want to un-stuff one.
    - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
      I know this is off topic but I cannot resist. It's very funny to read a comment about un-stuffing a straw man written by "scarecrowbob" Gave me a good laugh, thank you. :)
- knollimar 6mo ago
  I learned here like a week ago so I'm here to evangelize.
  - pydry 6mo ago
    This was a perfect example.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- robocat 6mo ago
  The collective smarts on the Internet can't come up with a better name that might help our brains tag the concept? Although at least it has some cross-cultural references. Why is naming so hard.
  - PakG1 6mo ago
    Memes help things to become popular. I guess the question would be how popular would it have been without the meme name? We'll never know.
  - nemomarx 6mo ago
    Weirdly, the meme wasn't a goomba originally. The goomba edit just got way more popular?
  - kevinmgranger 6mo ago
    Or the alternative explanation: there simply is no better name for it
SkyBelow 6mo ago
Sometimes there are two groups of people who have different opinions that don't interact, but given the extent they take up the same platform and don't seem to see each other, I'm not sure it is really a fallacy even then. First, it becomes possible for people who have a double standard to hide behind this. One can try to track an individual's stance, but a lot of internet etiquette seems to be based on the idea of not looking up a person's history to see if they are being contradictory. (And while being hypocritical doesn't necessarily invalidate an argument, it can help to indicate when someone is arguing it bad faith and it is a waste of time as someone will simply use different axioms to reach otherwise contradictory conclusions when they favor each.) Second, I think there is the ability to call out a group as being hypocritical, even when there are two sub groups. That one group supports A generally and another group supports B generally (and assuming that A + B is hypocritical), but they stop supporting it when it would bring them into conflict indicates a level of acceptance by the change in behavior. Each individual is too hard to measure this (maybe they are tired today, or distracted, or didn't even see it), but as a group, we can still measure the overall direction. So if a website ends up being very vocally in support of two contradictory positions, I think there is still a valid argument to be made about contradicting opinions, and the goomba fallacy is itself a fallacy. Edit: Removed example, might be too distracting to bring up an otherwise off topic issue as an example.
- plorg 6mo ago
  I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
  - SkyBelow 6mo ago
aaron695 6mo ago
[dead]
the_gipsy 6mo ago
You're making a strawman
- coldtea 6mo ago
  If so, I've seen that strawman living and breathing, and saying the first thing before, and the other thing now, several times.

Or just goomba fallacy

onemoresoop 6mo ago

[flagged]

sermah 6mo ago

til https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy

SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
That’s kind of just strawman with an origin story isn’t it?
- _diyar 6mo ago
  No because the goomba is the average of two real opinions, and the strawman is a distortion/reduction of any opinion such that its easy to argue against.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
    Ah, ok, so two real opinions made into a distortion. Right, I see how very dissimilar to an origin story of a strawman that is…
    - nkingsy 6mo ago
      If I only had a brain...
  - tadfisher 6mo ago
    More like a superposition of two opinions.
    - Cthulhu_ 6mo ago
      Schrodinger's Goomba?
- wuliwong 6mo ago
  I think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.
  - Jensson 6mo ago
    > Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app. Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so. That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are different sets of people you can still tell they are biased since they never appear in the threads where its obvious they are in the wrong. For example, lets say in a thread where a white cop shoots a black guy you find a lot of republicans say "this is just statistics, nothing to see here". Then in another thread where a black cop shoots a white guy republicans pour in and argue this must be racism and we should investigate! Maybe it isn't the same set of people, but its still a strong sign of problematic bias that they only choose to speak up in those particular threads and not the others. Every political side everywhere does this, and that is why people started calling that out.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
      Is it true that they don't appear in the threads where you feel it's obvious they're in the wrong? Or do they just get upvoted less in those threads so you don't see it when they do appear?
    - jmalicki 6mo ago
      It's almost as if factions are made up of different people with different opinions in a loose alliance. But nah, clearly they're all goombas.
    - mothballed 6mo ago
- scarecrowbob 6mo ago
  On some level, yes, but having words to describe sub-sets can be useful too. A "human" is just a "featherless biped", after all? I think the Goomba Fallacy captures something helpful to me- it's helpful to know the origin of a straw man if you want to un-stuff one.
  - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
    I know this is off topic but I cannot resist. It's very funny to read a comment about un-stuffing a straw man written by "scarecrowbob" Gave me a good laugh, thank you. :)
knollimar 6mo ago
I learned here like a week ago so I'm here to evangelize.
- pydry 6mo ago
  This was a perfect example.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
robocat 6mo ago
The collective smarts on the Internet can't come up with a better name that might help our brains tag the concept? Although at least it has some cross-cultural references. Why is naming so hard.
- PakG1 6mo ago
  Memes help things to become popular. I guess the question would be how popular would it have been without the meme name? We'll never know.
- nemomarx 6mo ago
  Weirdly, the meme wasn't a goomba originally. The goomba edit just got way more popular?
- kevinmgranger 6mo ago
  Or the alternative explanation: there simply is no better name for it

SkyBelow 6mo ago

Sometimes there are two groups of people who have different opinions that don't interact, but given the extent they take up the same platform and don't seem to see each other, I'm not sure it is really a fallacy even then. First, it becomes possible for people who have a double standard to hide behind this. One can try to track an individual's stance, but a lot of internet etiquette seems to be based on the idea of not looking up a person's history to see if they are being contradictory. (And while being hypocritical doesn't necessarily invalidate an argument, it can help to indicate when someone is arguing it bad faith and it is a waste of time as someone will simply use different axioms to reach otherwise contradictory conclusions when they favor each.) Second, I think there is the ability to call out a group as being hypocritical, even when there are two sub groups. That one group supports A generally and another group supports B generally (and assuming that A + B is hypocritical), but they stop supporting it when it would bring them into conflict indicates a level of acceptance by the change in behavior. Each individual is too hard to measure this (maybe they are tired today, or distracted, or didn't even see it), but as a group, we can still measure the overall direction. So if a website ends up being very vocally in support of two contradictory positions, I think there is still a valid argument to be made about contradicting opinions, and the goomba fallacy is itself a fallacy. Edit: Removed example, might be too distracting to bring up an otherwise off topic issue as an example.

plorg 6mo ago
I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
- SkyBelow 6mo ago

aaron695 6mo ago

[dead]

the_gipsy 6mo ago

You're making a strawman

coldtea 6mo ago
If so, I've seen that strawman living and breathing, and saying the first thing before, and the other thing now, several times.