▲ 481 ▼ It couldn't be any clearer (lemmy.world) submitted 1 week ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] prex@aussie.zone 96 points 1 week ago (7 children) These kind of vibes: permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (3 children) I worked in a tourist town that had some of those tour trollies driving around it all the time. It wasn't exactly cutthroat, but one guy thought it was because he charged twice what everyone else did. He started advertising his company as "American owned and operated!" - implying that the other two companies weren't. They were. Didn't matter, people would ask about "oh, so who owns this company?" like it was some gotcha, then I'd tell them about the owner of ours, and how he's from the town and his father was a veteran and not to believe everything you read. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) Moreso to not assume things that were never said. It's the whole, "I like pancakes", "oh so you hate waffles?" kind of thing. Much worse logical mistake than believing what you read, IMO. Easy enough to debunk lies when they're written down. Much harder to debunk lies that come from within your own head. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Truth doesn't care if it's a logical fallacy. The pancake/waffle thing holds a lotta water! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 week ago* Someone can like pancakes while hating waffles. That does not ever mean anyone who says they like pancakes also hates waffles. Now, if we're talking about things with loaded contexts, like someone saying, "yea I really like those SS uniforms, they're stylish" then, you can start correctly asking some questions. Still isn't a guarantee, but you have a lot better chance. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (2 children) I've seen candy that literally consists only of sugar, coloring, and preservatives with a big "Zero Fat!" faux sticker like the redfarm one. Hell, in the US (and possibly other places, but of the 7 countries on 3 continents I've been to, I've only seen it in the US) they sometimes proudly announce "ARTIFICIALLY FLAVORED" as if it's a humongous health benefit 🤦🏻 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago They have to state, plainly, in a conspicuous place on the front of the package that it is artificially flavored. It's the law. You probably just saw that label. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Tic-tacs are advertised as "sugar free" due to a legal loophole. Regardless of serving size, a product can be advertised as "sugar free" if one serving contains less than 0.5g of total sugar. One serving of tic-tacs is exactly 0.5g and contains 0.49g of sugar. 98% sugar, but is "sugar free" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (3 children) I worked in a tourist town that had some of those tour trollies driving around it all the time. It wasn't exactly cutthroat, but one guy thought it was because he charged twice what everyone else did. He started advertising his company as "American owned and operated!" - implying that the other two companies weren't. They were. Didn't matter, people would ask about "oh, so who owns this company?" like it was some gotcha, then I'd tell them about the owner of ours, and how he's from the town and his father was a veteran and not to believe everything you read. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) Moreso to not assume things that were never said. It's the whole, "I like pancakes", "oh so you hate waffles?" kind of thing. Much worse logical mistake than believing what you read, IMO. Easy enough to debunk lies when they're written down. Much harder to debunk lies that come from within your own head. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Truth doesn't care if it's a logical fallacy. The pancake/waffle thing holds a lotta water! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 week ago* Someone can like pancakes while hating waffles. That does not ever mean anyone who says they like pancakes also hates waffles. Now, if we're talking about things with loaded contexts, like someone saying, "yea I really like those SS uniforms, they're stylish" then, you can start correctly asking some questions. Still isn't a guarantee, but you have a lot better chance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) Moreso to not assume things that were never said. It's the whole, "I like pancakes", "oh so you hate waffles?" kind of thing. Much worse logical mistake than believing what you read, IMO. Easy enough to debunk lies when they're written down. Much harder to debunk lies that come from within your own head. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Truth doesn't care if it's a logical fallacy. The pancake/waffle thing holds a lotta water! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 week ago* Someone can like pancakes while hating waffles. That does not ever mean anyone who says they like pancakes also hates waffles. Now, if we're talking about things with loaded contexts, like someone saying, "yea I really like those SS uniforms, they're stylish" then, you can start correctly asking some questions. Still isn't a guarantee, but you have a lot better chance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] degen@midwest.social 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Truth doesn't care if it's a logical fallacy. The pancake/waffle thing holds a lotta water! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 week ago* Someone can like pancakes while hating waffles. That does not ever mean anyone who says they like pancakes also hates waffles. Now, if we're talking about things with loaded contexts, like someone saying, "yea I really like those SS uniforms, they're stylish" then, you can start correctly asking some questions. Still isn't a guarantee, but you have a lot better chance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 week ago* Someone can like pancakes while hating waffles. That does not ever mean anyone who says they like pancakes also hates waffles. Now, if we're talking about things with loaded contexts, like someone saying, "yea I really like those SS uniforms, they're stylish" then, you can start correctly asking some questions. Still isn't a guarantee, but you have a lot better chance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (2 children) I've seen candy that literally consists only of sugar, coloring, and preservatives with a big "Zero Fat!" faux sticker like the redfarm one. Hell, in the US (and possibly other places, but of the 7 countries on 3 continents I've been to, I've only seen it in the US) they sometimes proudly announce "ARTIFICIALLY FLAVORED" as if it's a humongous health benefit 🤦🏻 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago They have to state, plainly, in a conspicuous place on the front of the package that it is artificially flavored. It's the law. You probably just saw that label. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Tic-tacs are advertised as "sugar free" due to a legal loophole. Regardless of serving size, a product can be advertised as "sugar free" if one serving contains less than 0.5g of total sugar. One serving of tic-tacs is exactly 0.5g and contains 0.49g of sugar. 98% sugar, but is "sugar free" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago They have to state, plainly, in a conspicuous place on the front of the package that it is artificially flavored. It's the law. You probably just saw that label. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Tic-tacs are advertised as "sugar free" due to a legal loophole. Regardless of serving size, a product can be advertised as "sugar free" if one serving contains less than 0.5g of total sugar. One serving of tic-tacs is exactly 0.5g and contains 0.49g of sugar. 98% sugar, but is "sugar free" permalink fedilink source parent
