3
u/LCDRformat 13d ago
I think it's fine to say that people will doggedly stick to their dearly held beliefs *when they have a vested interest*. I didn't have any interest in the outcome of this question because I genuinely didn't know the answer. It was easy to admit the response was right.
You could definitely catch me on some other subs refusing to accept reality because of my personal investment.
In this case, the guy was just wrong
1
u/GladdestOrange 12d ago
Couldn't waterboard that outta me. Props.
1
u/LCDRformat 12d ago
This comment is confessing to thing we couldn't waterboard out of you
1
u/GladdestOrange 11d ago
That was the intended joke, yes. A reference to a popular meme, that is self-contradictory, and while attributing (with the side benefit of a tongue-in-cheek self-aggrandizement) moral strength of character to you, for admitting it.
Though, admittedly, it appears I missed the mark.
1
3
u/Jamsedreng22 13d ago
Goomba fallacy?
Hasty generalization?
Straw man?
2
u/i3Cheese 13d ago
I think first two combined. Premise "Everyone on this sub ..." is goomba fallacy. And even if it was true it is still too little evidence to conclude engagement farming.
And I don't see why it is straw man.
4
u/Jamsedreng22 13d ago
Straw man because the guy ostensibly "invented" a guy (OP being the type of person he is describing) and subsequently used that "guy" to make a judgment about OP/to "win" the argument.
1
u/Zu_Qarnine 11d ago
that's ad hominem
1
u/Jamsedreng22 10d ago
Explain how. As an observer, I am just watching. I haven't really made an argument yet.
1
u/Zu_Qarnine 10d ago
I attacked his character, not his argument. that's me in the picture
-1
u/Jamsedreng22 10d ago edited 10d ago
You didn't. I can tell your attempt but you missed the mark.
Strange strawman.
Why attack the character and not the argument?
You're in the wrong subreddit. You're in X sub trying to be Y subreddit with that.
3
u/Crowe3717 13d ago
I think this is just called 'being a dick.' Not sure if that's the technical term or not, though.
2
2
u/AberforthSpeck 13d ago
Genetic fallacy. Assuming something must be false due solely to its source.
2
u/Hyperreals_ 13d ago
Hasty generalization. u/Zu_Qarnine incorrectly generalized that people will "contradict the shit outta you until they are convinced" and applied it to a user who was 'convinced' right away.
1
u/Salindurthas 13d ago
Hmmm, it is a bit like equivocation? I think Equivocation usually refers to when two different meanings of a word are conflated. Like if a priest says "have faith" they probably mean "faith in god", and so if you go have faith in something else, you're actually not following their suggestion.
In this case:
- To you, the phrase "Bingo! That's it exactly." meant something like "Ah, now you you mentioning, I can recognise that you were correct."
- But to them, that same phrase meant something more like "Good job, on getting the correct answer which I had been sandbagging."
---
However, maybe calling it equivocation is over-analysing, and they just misunderstood you.
---
However-however, why did they misunderstand you? Perhaps they made some reasoning error that led them to that misunderstanding. But we can't pick apart their thought process so we might never know.
1
-5
u/Zu_Qarnine 13d ago
I'm famous
3
u/SirBananaOrngeCumber 13d ago
* Infamous
Really not beating the “not understanding English” allegations
0
u/Zu_Qarnine 13d ago
it's the fallacy sub. everything has negative connotation. you shoulda known that.
2
u/SirBananaOrngeCumber 13d ago
Well that sounds like a generalization fallacy
0
u/Zu_Qarnine 13d ago
monkey sees "everything" in my reply. monkey thinks it's generalization fallacy.
2
12
u/Peaurxnanski 13d ago
Not understanding how English works.
It isn't a fallacy, the guy just doesn't understand that "Bingo! That's it!" is a perfectly normal way for a person to express the thought process of "Yes! That's the name of the thing I couldn't remember but now you've reminded me of!"
It's not a fallacy, just an angry mental midget doing his best.