DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

[Flemming]

What is the problem with anonymity, anyway?

People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.

Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.

To be clear, I support anonymity. That’s why tapir’s comment was so … cognitively challenged.

[Marcus]

What is the problem with anonymity, anyway?

People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.

Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.

To be clear, I support anonymity. That’s why tapir’s comment was so … cognitively challenged.

Ah, that explains why you are having trouble understanding the comment. Your simple comment about what you support shows that you don't understand the discussion. Tapir spoke about how anonymity is both used and castigated by some, in exactly the fallacious manner PG so clearly outlines above.

If you remain confidential when you criticize Mopologists they call you a coward.

If you reveal your identity they doxx, harass, and try to hurt you in every way they can.

Of course, when they get doxxed it's terrible and if they stay anonymous it's because they want to stay safe.

The Mopologist is the most hypocrical creature I've ever encountered.

Yes. The funniest argument I ever saw an apologist make about this was Peter pan's sputtering justification for his then-anonymously authored hate blog:

...If Neville wants to call writing a blog under a pseudonym using “a fake blogger persona,” then I’m afraid to tell him that many blogs are pseudonymous, many famous authors have written under pseudonyms, and even many early American Founders wrote pseudonymously. (I certainly don’t consider this blog to be on the level of Thomas Paine’s anonymously published Common Sense, of course.) As I’ve stated before, I used a pseudonym to protect myself from unstable people...

A perfect example of Tapir's point about the hypocritical use of anonymity.

[Marcus]

If anyone else wants to try the abnormal psychology of why I think this is funny, they can go ahead. I’ll just say that no-one else has ever found it even slightly funny, not even my family who know me and often laugh at my other jokes, not even after I’ve tried to explain why it’s supposed to be funny. And even though I sort of have an idea what’s kind of funny about it, I’m not sure I can account for just how funny I find it.

My family are just, “Um, yeah, okay.” Oh, well. I don’t get all of Moksha’s jokes, either, but when I don’t, I don’t mind, because they’re short.

I've had that experience. Something I think is outrageously funny gets nary a grin and explaining gets me nowhere, so if abnormal psych can explain this phenomenon, I'd like to hear it too. And not just because penguins are short.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If anyone else wants to try the abnormal psychology of why I think this is funny, they can go ahead. I’ll just say that no-one else has ever found it even slightly funny, not even my family who know me and often laugh at my other jokes, not even after I’ve tried to explain why it’s supposed to be funny. And even though I sort of have an idea what’s kind of funny about it, I’m not sure I can account for just how funny I find it.

My family are just, “Um, yeah, okay.” Oh, well. I don’t get all of Moksha’s jokes, either, but when I don’t, I don’t mind, because they’re short.

Well, let’s break it down!

> Me: "You know why some people can't get a joke?"

* this is the obvious set up; it’s conventional and relatable, no worries

> Audience: [Anything]

* i’m guessing the [anything] is that members of the audience are all shouting different things? I dunno, I’m lost right here.

> Me: [Raises an eyebrow and wags a finger.]

* I imagine a comic on stage just raising an eyebrow and wagging his finger, because the joke is that everyone has a different idea about humor? I dunno, it’s just a guess, which, you know, doesn’t make sense for casual humor.

So, for me the joke doesn’t work because the joke lacks structure. Lemme demonstrate how it would make sense:

Joke: A comedian was on stage one night when he asked the audience, “You know why some people can't get a joke?”

The audience was quiet, not knowing if they were expected to answer, but with a little encouragement from the comedian they soon were spouting all sorts of things.

After they quieted down, the comedian looked at them seriously, pointed a finger, and said, “Exactly!”

The audience laughed uproariously because they were drunk.

——————

- Doc

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I’ve always thought this joke was funny, but many people I know do not:

President Putin was just re-elected with almost 100% of the vote. Some election experts feel that Putin’s election slogan might have had something to do with his landslide victory, “Vote Putin Or You And Your Loved Ones Will Be Murdered.”

[Marcus]

If anyone else wants to try the abnormal psychology of why I think this is funny, they can go ahead. I’ll just say that no-one else has ever found it even slightly funny, not even my family who know me and often laugh at my other jokes, not even after I’ve tried to explain why it’s supposed to be funny. And even though I sort of have an idea what’s kind of funny about it, I’m not sure I can account for just how funny I find it.

My family are just, “Um, yeah, okay.” Oh, well. I don’t get all of Moksha’s jokes, either, but when I don’t, I don’t mind, because they’re short.

Well, let’s break it down!

> Me: "You know why some people can't get a joke?"

* this is the obvious set up; it’s conventional and relatable, no worries

> Audience: [Anything]

* i’m guessing the [anything] is that members of the audience are all shouting different things? I dunno, I’m lost right here.

> Me: [Raises an eyebrow and wags a finger.]

* I imagine a comic on stage just raising an eyebrow and wagging his finger, because the joke is that everyone has a different idea about humor? I dunno, it’s just a guess, which, you know, doesn’t make sense for casual humor.

So, for me the joke doesn’t work because the joke lacks structure. Lemme demonstrate how it would make sense:

Joke: A comedian was on stage one night when he asked the audience, “You know why some people can't get a joke?”

The audience was quiet, not knowing if they were expected to answer, but with a little encouragement from the comedian they soon were spouting all sorts of things.

After they quieted down, the comedian looked at them seriously, pointed a finger, and said, “Exactly!”

The audience laughed uproariously because they were drunk.

——————

- Doc

Now that works.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’ve always thought this joke was funny, but many people I know do not:

President Putin was just re-elected with almost 100% of the vote. Some election experts feel that Putin’s election slogan might have had something to do with his landslide victory, “Vote Putin Or You And Your Loved Ones Will Be Murdered.”

LOL. See? Instantly got it, and I literally lol’d. Structure is the key, and if it’s not, then please let us in so we can be privy to the humor.

- Doc

[drumdude]

What is the problem with anonymity, anyway?

People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.

Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.

To be clear, I support anonymity. That’s why tapir’s comment was so … cognitively challenged.

Again… it wasn’t.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To be clear, I support anonymity. That’s why tapir’s comment was so … cognitively challenged.

Again… it wasn’t.

It wasn’t; “Flemming” is a gigantic stupid Mormon yokel. He came here so he could earn some good boy points from Dorkenpork.

You know, Flemming, I’m surprised you show your face in these parts - you’d thinks after your last embarrassment you’d be careful around here. Guess ya wanna make Scratch’s top 10.

- Doc

[Flemming]

It wasn’t; “Flemming” is a gigantic stupid Mormon yokel. He came here so he could earn some good boy points from Dorkenpork.

You know, Flemming, I’m surprised you show your face in these parts - you’d thinks after your last embarrassment you’d be careful around here. Guess ya wanna make Scratch’s top 10.

- Doc

I don’t know why you’re getting so emotional, even threatening; and worst, nonsensical. Are you okay? What did I do to you again?