this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
873 points (97.2% liked)

Comic Strips

12607 readers
3087 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 129 points 1 month ago (6 children)

A lot of people who think they're saying "[actual fact]" are really just stating "[subjective opinion]" and call any criticism of their opinions "[incoherent rage]"

[–] Franconian_Nomad@feddit.org 74 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Actual fact: The democrats don’t control the weather and create hurricanes to destroy Florida.

[–] kofe@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Actual fact: abortion is a life saving medical procedure

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Subjective anecdote: hurricanes are a life saving medical procedure.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How can you say them being suggestive if they haven't suggested anything. Bro cant even talk.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, bro talks. You just don't listen to him.

Also, he suggested watching Megamind again, which I accepted.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Isn't that it's reproductive organ?

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is funny because I read it as "Democrats don't control the weather and [they] create hurricanes to destroy Florida."

Media literacy strikes again. You could state what you stated and yet someone will still believe they create hurricanes without the ability to control weather.

load more comments (2 replies)

You can control the weather to some degree and governments do, do it. Its just the word 'control' implies significant amount of control when in reality it is very minor.

Often these conspiracies are rooted in actual facts, just that facts get distorted insanely. Even if one person in the chain made a mistake, everyone else after them will also make the same mistake.

(Just an article on could seeding if anyone is interested )

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It could be argued that the democrats enabling of capitalism drives climate change. Although not expressly for the purpose of destroying Florida

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Although not expressly for the purpose of destroying Florida

Source?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

[incoherent rage]

[–] levzzz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

[[Hyperlink blocked]]

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

There are more than three things

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phorq@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

[Coment attempting to have an intelligent and witty take on the conflict dispite two typos from either lazyness or stupidity]

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

[permanent ban]

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

[Drunken rambling story agreeing with this comment because of an experience 20 years ago]

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

[Excited agreement 7 years later]

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Anecdote isn't worthless, it just takes a lot of it to become credible.

Like, think of an anecdote like a single study - doesn't carry much weight, but may indicate that further investigation is called for. A shit ton of anecdotes all making a similar claim - now we've got peer review that may actually add up to something significant. It also may not, but the more it builds momentum without being debunked, the more likely it is to be actually getting at something real.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

On the other hand, when someone claims something is impossible/something has never happened before/something happens every single time, but you have just 1 anecdote from a credible source that contradicts that claim, then that 1 anecdote is enough to know that they are wrong.

Example: some pundit states: our government has never executed an innocent man. You just need proof that they have executed a single innocent man to show that the pundit has no credibility on the subject and that it's thus not an impossibility that other executed men were also innocent.

[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doesn't a "lot of anecdotal evidence" eventually become a sample set?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

A fact is not enough - your audience will form an opinion based on it. That prevents objectivity.

You need to select your facts (pro and contra a point of view). And in the process you express your opinion which is based on the mentioned facts. It's very hard to be objective and quite easy to do framing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nl4real@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Real life*

People on the internet will actually go out of their way to prove you wrong with factual evidence

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I'd say it goes both ways. Some people are presenting anecdotal evidence and conjecture as fact, arguing against actual facts.

[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 month ago

Family Dinners

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago

Personally I'm all about objective opinions.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago
load more comments
view more: next ›