1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across "back-petal", instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".
It's, "Excuse me, while I kiss the sky."
One thing is different from another, not than. One thing differs from another. It's different from the other thing.
Although in the UK it's "different to" for some reason.
Idk if this counts as a phrase, but on the internet, people talk about their pets crossing the rainbow bridge when they die. That's not how the rainbow bridge poem goes. Pets go to a magnificent field when they die. They are healed of all injury and illness. When you die, they find you in the field and you cross the bridge together. It's much sweeter the way it was written than the way people use it.
It's always going to be the "of" people. Its "would have", "should have" etc and not "would of".
Also, if you wish you had done something differently then it's "wish I had" not "wish I would have".
The vast majority of these issues could be solved if people a) read any halfway-decent book, b) and didn’t choose to remain willfully ignorant. It’s fine to misunderstand or just not know something. We’ve all been there, we’ll be there again. NBD. But to be shown or offered the correct way and still choose to do it wrongly? That’s not cool at all.
About 1 in 3 posters here say “loose” when they mean “lose”
People saying "exscape", "expresso", "pasghetti"
Exspecially!
"Give me a ghetto, you stupid French landlord!"
"Je n'ai pasghetti!"
(Pardon my French)
What entitlement means vs false sense of entitlement.
I tell people they are entitled to their rights and have an entitlement to their social security money for example, and they get offended thinking I mean "false sense of entitlement" instead.
Online in general: using "reductio ad absurdum" as a fallacy.
It's a longstanding logical tool. Here's an example of how it works: let's assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:
∞ + 1 = ∞
And:
∞ - ∞ = 0
Agreed? If so, then:
∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞
And therefore:
1 = 0
Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.
It's a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It's possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it's not reductio ad absurdum.
Well if we're going to be talking about logical fallacies, I feel like the string of arguments that you made there is a category error. Infinity isn't exactly a number, it's more of a philosophical concept than anything else. I would argue that trying to subtract Infinity from Infinity is illogical and kind of silly, but it wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum as you put it, but instead a category error.
An absurdist argument might be more like, if I have one cat I can trade it for one dog. Therefore infinite cats can be traded for infinite dogs. This is obviously absurd, because infinite cats don't exist, unfortunately.
Using "racking" instead of the correct "wracking" in "wracking my brain". Not very common, but it annoys me... But not as much as "could of"... That is the worst, just stop it!
This is online and in person in Canada.
Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch
I heard Nice things about France
I heard things about niche, France.
This thread peaks my interest.
I hope my words piqued someone else’s interests more.
"Shoot that guy when he peaks the corner again"
"addicting"
I know someone that says 'Pacific' instead of 'specific'. The man has his talents & his place in the world, food man, but yes that is infuriating.
I know someone who calls it the “Specific Ocean”
This specific ocean!!
Yeah /yĕ′ə, yă′ə, yā′ə/ is a different word than Yea /yā/
As in the well known Christmas carol, "Oh come, all ye faithful dudes," verse 7, "Yeah, Lord we greet thee, born this happy morning..."
Jä
Ya
Haha is this a follow up on that one post with the OP writing "back-petal"?
