The reddit rhetoric

They do the same spergy thing every damn time.

The Redditfag Gambit to terminate discussion that triggers their feefees.

  1. Papers! I demand papers because scientism! Calling a paper wrong is tantamount to disproving its concept! Show me papers I’m too lazy to look up so I can moan they aren’t sciencey enough in my superior opinion and furthermore, you cherrypicked them for me, how dare you!
  2. Tell me your qualifications so I can tell you they’re inadequate and feel better about not understanding and ignoring you.
  3. Fallacy fallacy. If I use this word often enough without explaining how it applies in specific cases maybe you’ll confuse me for a person with two brain cells to rub together.
  4. When caught on a point, I shall ignore it, for I have no faith, even bad faith. God himself couldn’t correct me. All hail Richard Dawkins, pedo be his rumours.
  5. I don’t work in this field but I’m pretty sure I know it better than the person using all the terminology correctly.
  6. I know all about this topic because I saw a meme once.
  7. Cliche soundbites I’m pretending I came up with.
  8. Off-topic reference, derailing impossibly ambiguous over-broad questions and randomly quoting you (like wow, just wow) make me look like I read the whole thing in spite of overt ADD.
  9. My feelings are hurt, you are wrong. QED. Also, you are terrible.
  10. Stop writing, nobody likes you because my opinion is gospel. Muh peer review appeal to standards uber alles, ignore the mass fraud, and blog posts should be held to the same standard as experimental papers. As in, a scientist never writes like a filthy normie or cracks a joke bc Sheldon Cooper.

Paper Strawmans, casual tone policing (well, the Internet is peer-reviewed, is it not?) and self-congratulation.

It’s like watching a dog eat its own vomit.

11 responses to “The reddit rhetoric

  1. Allrite einsteen I got 100 prhds ect and will vill draw you a map proving the earth rvovles arond the moon und it izzz sskware dum kuff

  2. >Tell me your qualifications so I can tell you they’re inadequate and feel better about not understanding and ignoring you.

    You don’t have to say whether or not you’ve got a Ph.D.

    You don’t have to cite peer-reviewed papers.

    You could just answer a question about your field of advanced study. E.g. Are you a psychology major or not?

    But of course, that would be too much trouble – you want people to appreciate your rhetoric without knowing anything about your academic career.

    Fair enough.

    Just write as well as Lasha Darkmoon does. That should suffice to get you a regular column at TOQ.

    https://www.darkmoon.me/about-lasha-darkmoon/

      • If you never make your claim explicit, you will never have to admit that you’re wrong.

        Similarly, if you never make your claim explicit, you can say that your opponent has proven it for you.

        Such a method of rhetoric doesn’t qualify as scholarly argument. Scholars don’t necessarily respect other fields – for example, a psychologist might believe that physics is silly nonsense and goldbricking – but that psychologist would be able to discourse with other psychologists in an academic manner.

        So it you never admit to having a specialty, you’ll never have to live up to the standards of that specialty.

        That might allow you to write a lot of rhetoric, but it’s not likely to get you recognized as a scholar. But then again, I suppose the world already has recognized your scholarship in some other venue, and the Internet is just where you go to relax and unwind.

      • The autism is strong in this one, goys. I guess I should try to prove myself to some random weeaboo by username because reasons. If my username were God, I’d have to literally prove myself as God. Let’s hold a shitposting blog to the standards of Nature…

      • >The autism is strong in this one

        Let’s assume that you could correctly diagnose me with various psychological disorders or personal problems.

        Would that make my true statements any less true?

        If an autistic person claims that 2+4=6, does math stop being true because it is explained by an autistic person?

        And in your scholarly education, did anyone ever mention something called an “ad hominem fallacy”?

      • >If my username were God, I’d have to literally prove myself as God. Let’s hold a shitposting blog to the standards of Nature…

        If your goal for this blog is to exemplify shitposting, you could choose a username like “disenchantedshitposter.”

        That would make things convenient for your readers.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s