Everybody privately shit-talks everybody. The phone always listens to it and records it. A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts. Everybody in the world suddenly gets a thousand shit-talking texts from their family, friends and associates. Society dissolves.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    30·
    2 days ago

    Oooh, edgy. Few problems:

    List of logical fallacies

    1. Hasty Generalization

    “Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Assumes a universal truth based on limited or anecdotal experience. Not everyone engages in this behavior

    1. False Premise

    “The phone always listens to it and records it.” This is factually untrue for most users and makes the argument invalid from the start. The conclusion based on this premise (a hack turning that into texts) relies on a false understanding of technology.

    1. Slippery Slope (Implied)

    “A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts.”

    Implied assumption: this will definitely go viral and cause massive disruption. It assumes a cascade of dramatic consequences without evidence.

    1. Appeal to Cynicism

    “Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Uses an exaggeratedly negative view of human nature as a foundation to justify or normalize antisocial behavior.

    1. Moral Equivalence

    By implying that since everyone does it, exposing it via a viral hack is just revealing the “truth” and therefore not really unethical, it downplays the maliciousness of the hypothetical hack.

    Basically, your entire premise is a heap of logical fallacy and edgelord cringe.

    • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      127·
      2 days ago

      Your criticisms are very weak. Sorry.

      Instead of looking for ways to defeat me you should just go with it. For example you could consider what the societal upheaval would look like. How would we recover. What growth would it inspire etc.

      I mean, really. What difference to my point would 99% shit-talkers vs 100% make?

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        23·
        2 days ago

        No one is looking to “defeat” you.

        Accepting and internalising it when someone explains you’re wrong about something, results in two people being right about something, not a “winner” and a “loser”.

        Changing your mind is not losing.

        We can still have a discussion about your hypothetical, after.

        But you’ve walked in with a bunch of fallacies and in response to having them corrected, turned so abrasive, that your behaviour and world view is now the only thing anyone is interested in talking about.