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".
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.
Or in math you'll talk about approaching infinity, that is just some arbitrarily large number.
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.
This thread peaks my interest.
I hope my words piqued someone else’s interests more.
Oh this one's peak
Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch
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.
It's, "Excuse me, while I kiss the sky."
"For all intensive porpoises" is the one that really annoys me.
They're dolphins, not porpoises. Fuck, get your cetaceans right.
“Toe the party line” To align with the interests of a political party; to get in line with the agenda of the leader of a political party
“Tow the party line” Something to do with tugboats
I always heard people use it as a synonym for pushing the envelope (like you're walking right up to the line and prodding it with your toe), and only found out the "falling in line" meaning later. I still see tons of that usage today, and I wonder where it came from.
People saying "exscape", "expresso", "pasghetti"
"Give me a ghetto, you stupid French landlord!"
"Je n'ai pasghetti!"
(Pardon my French)
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”
English/US - seeing “would of” instead of “would’ve”or “would have”. This one bugs me the most.
