• weker01@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I was struggling to understand that for a long time too. It seems like it’s a mix of being told that just saying no is not polite and an aversion to conflict. Especially when stating needs.

      Some parents actively discourage their children to state their needs clearly and concisely from a very very young age.

      • Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Companies that give personality tests in the hiring process are largely looking at your “agreeableness” score. We’re constantly taught (from an early age, as you mention) that the default answer should be “Yes.” If you’re creative, you might push it to “Yes, and…” But a plain “no” from anyone who isn’t explicitly labeled as a “leader” is a non-starter in systems obsessed with hierarchy.

        There are really only three options. Try to climb an existing hierarchy. Make your own hierarchy and place yourself atop it. Or operate within and between hierarchies without unnecessarily validating their existence. That last one’s increasingly difficult by design. And honestly, the second one usually requires exploiting others.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sure, that’s fine in IRL. It fails on any kind of discussion board though, at least for anything not as comically egregious as “give me your banking details.”

  • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That is an appeal to authority, but not a fallacious one. Lawmakers know a lot about how and why people steal. Fallacious appeal to authority is when the authority you’re talking about has no knowledge of the topic, for example quoting a psychologist on nutrition advice.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Appeal to authority isn’t saying something about the quality of the authority, it’s that the quality of the authority has to be considered. There’s a bit of nuance between the two there.

      Basically “because they’re in charge/an expert” isn’t a satisfactory answer on its own anymore than “because I said so” is. The context of their leadership/expertise has to be considered before you make the appeal.

      This matters when we enter cultural moments like now where, for instance, a large swath of Americans just by default refuse to accept the CDC/FDA/etc. as legitimate authorities. Their politicians told them they can’t be trusted so they internalize appeals to them as built on a lie.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Lawmakers don’t know shit about fuck. Sometimes they have experts available they listen to. Otherwise it’s whoever spends the most, who they’re buddies with, or what just feels like it will jive with their base at the time.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          Fallacy fallacy.

          Sometimes a person is insufferable and that’s the problem.

          Like with lawmakers.

      • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Lawmakers, or at least those advising them, know plenty about theft and all its different flavors. Why do you think rich people theft like fraud is punished so much more lightly than poor people theft?

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s a single authority falacy, in this case there is only one opinion, the person who’s protecting their financial information, to promote the idea of not looking into someone’s bank account. When there could be a legitimate reason to look into a person’s finances.

      In all seriousness in so far as the meme is presenting itself single authority is prudent. Like what if every decision about yourself everyone was always a stakeholder? That would be hell.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’ve actually had this dispute on Lemmy.

    Dude kept insisting I tell him my income but refused to say how or why it would be relevant.

    Ed: no joke, it was flyingsquid too which is a bit more funny tbh.

    It’s a very sensible conclusion when I’ve asked you how rich you are multiple times and you refuse to answer. Even after I told you my economic situation.

    You’re rich and you are embarrassed about it because it makes you look just as callous and dismissive of the poor as Elon.