this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
56 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8396 readers
253 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

a person is reasonable, people are dumb panicky animals

It applies well in the movie it was written for, in the context of extraterrestrial life existing as fugitives on earth, but there are of course other circumstances where a person can be a dumb panicky animal and a group of people can be reasonable.

I have a petty thing about a movie that I have spoken about but nobody seems to share my anguish. It's the famous "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?" zinger from Happy Gilmore, my mind is locked on the fact that Adam Sandler literally wrote the script, he made him say that dumb line so his character could respond in such a way.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I call it appeal to cinema. It's something my dad has picked up and gives me the same frustration and the thought "oh, this conversation is going nowhere in a hurry."

I remember one time he announced to me that he would "change the question" which is like going "now imagine yourself as this strawman."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

This is just like in Idiocracy, probably.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

Lord of the Flies is one of the biggest ones of these. MFer heard about people surviving collectively after a shipwreck, wrote a book about how humans can't do that, and now people cite it like it's a historical document

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

I am building a hell specifically for people who think Lord of the Flies has anything useful to teach us about the nature of society and cooperation.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

People do this with all sorts of shit: from movies, to the bible, to things politicians say. It's just them laundering their own opinion through some perceived authority.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We're talking about the humanities, not STEM here. It's not like there's a social physics with firm predictive formulas for individual or even aggregate human behavior we can use instead. I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that the narrative priorities of a given author should be taken into account when using fictional works like this, but... Surely you wouldn't say that Dostoevsky's The Idiot or an arbitrary Discworld novel haven't got anything real and useful to teach us about actual human behavior?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

If the thing is in fiction because it happens in reality just use an example of it happening.

Made up shit only supports arguments about made up shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

If one known to the commenter is readily available that's fair I suppose, but sometimes the fictional example can be particularly poignant and the basis of your criticism can be advantageously used to illustrate something specific about a given situation and its broader context or impact that an isolated real event might not. As an example, take this small except from Pratchett's 'Small Gods' - largely a critique of religious fanaticism, group think and in/out group behaviors - in which the fictional philosopher "Didactylos" debates the practice of capital punishment (by way of public stoning) of people who've transgressed against the stringent edicts of the central theocracy in that book:

“I know about sureness,' said Didactylos. 'I remember, before I was blind, I went to Omnia once. And in your Citadel I saw a crowd stoning a man to death in a pit. Ever seen that?'

'It has to be done,' Brutha mumbled. 'So the soul can be shriven and-'

'Don't know about the soul. Never been that kind of philosopher,' said Didactylos. 'All I know is, it was a horrible sight.'

'The state of the body is not-'

'Oh, I'm not talking about the poor bugger in the pit,' said the philosopher. 'I'm talking about the people throwing the stones. They were sure all right. They were sure it wasn't them in the pit. You could see it in their faces. So glad it wasn't them in the pit that they were throwing just as hard as they could.”

I could instead have used some factual reporting about an instance of religious mistreatment by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran or something, but I frankly don't think that would have been equally illuminating.

Edit: Separately, as a counter-point to your assertion that "Made up shit only supports arguments about made up shit.", I'd point out that that doesn't even apply in the hard sciences. Einstein - with his justified love of the Gedankenexperiment - would have vehemently disagreed. So would Nicola Tesla, without the imagination of whom we probably would have eventually had a moden transmission system for energy, but nowhere near as early.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

yeah nah, you're missing the point. Stuff which did not happen is not evidence of stuff happening and so can't be used to support a prediction of the future.

What you're talking about seems to be some broader defense of fiction as having merit in expressing emotions or values which is a different thing entirely.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ah, right. I still don't know that I'd agree (at least to the point of absolutism), although I can see where you're coming from. I'm not saying I think you're inherently wrong, so much as that I think your stance is very extreme and inflexible to the point of being unreasonable. Suppose that one were to use a real example of history rhyming without outright repeating as a basis for informing a logical extrapolation pertaining to future events. Like, contrasting societal and political developments of 1930's Germany to contemporary America. Well, why then would it be less valid or useful to contrast FBI's early efforts with the Total Information Awareness program, let alone NSA's later efforts with Orwell's 1984 or Dick's A Scanner Darkly? Why would there be absolutely no value in arguing against the infinite distractions of the Bread and Butter Circus of modern entertainment supported by Huxley's A brave New World or rail against the value of seeking digital immorality for only those who can afford the price of admission by referencing Edding's The Bin or, hell, CP2077?

Edit: Uh, I am of couse just playing Devil's Advocate to your hard stance here. One could of course trivially come up with any number of much less justifiable examples, in which case(s) I'd obviously agree with you. I'm not arguing you cannot be right (and often will be), just that I don't think it's a universal truth that always applies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›