No you don't know, you assume, and wrongly, as relevant analysis of this claim.shoe that the exact opposite is true.
I think this manipulative use of language needs to stop, it's just a way to make anyone in disagreement with proclamations of dogma feel like idiots.
The appeal to common knowledge is usually performed by people who have zero clue about what they are speaking, but who feel confident in saying the things they say since it's a belief they perceive to be commonly accepted, especially by people who should know what they see talking about.
They feel like no one isnlolely to challenge them, but should someone actually ask them how they know what they speak of, they will show themselves to be completely ignorant of the matter.
They will then feign disinterest in the subject, the one that they themselves had brought up.
It's really signaling their agreement with rge comlk dogma that is used to identify one as being ideologically acceptable, or politically correct, as that was the term that used to describe this.
I call it being basic as fuck, these are people afraid to express anything that isn't likely to be well received.
The problem with such assumption statements of what is popularly believed is that it gives off the impression that the speaker is at least somewhat informed of the topic, when in reality they are feigning knowledge regarding it.
This leads to a snowball effect as others, not wanting to appear ignorant or ideologically dissident, will just as mindlessly repeat the same thing that "everybody knows", and it leads to a result of a bunch of people who know nothing of which they speak assuming that they are safe in speaking as they do because surely there must be someone in the crowd who has a clue about this.
There isn't, it's just one person who said something false but strongly believed, and falsely characterized their statement as common knowledge, then because they were surrounded by others who would prefer his statement be fact, those around him begin to follow suit, making the same claims, and claiming it's commonly known.
Not one of then can substantiate their statements, as none of them actually know if the claim is true, and the claim often is not true, but they can confidently say what they do because they assume no one would be bold enough to challenge them on the true depths of their knowledge.
[ + ] CRKT_M16Z
[ - ] CRKT_M16Z 5 points 2.0 yearsMay 30, 2022 10:47:43 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] 9000timesempty
[ - ] 9000timesempty 4 points 2.0 yearsMay 30, 2022 11:05:05 ago (+4/-0)
Damn jews.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 2 points 2.0 yearsMay 30, 2022 15:11:17 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 30, 2022 16:35:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 30, 2022 16:25:46 ago (+0/-0)
No you don't know, you assume, and wrongly, as relevant analysis of this claim.shoe that the exact opposite is true.
I think this manipulative use of language needs to stop, it's just a way to make anyone in disagreement with proclamations of dogma feel like idiots.
The appeal to common knowledge is usually performed by people who have zero clue about what they are speaking, but who feel confident in saying the things they say since it's a belief they perceive to be commonly accepted, especially by people who should know what they see talking about.
They feel like no one isnlolely to challenge them, but should someone actually ask them how they know what they speak of, they will show themselves to be completely ignorant of the matter.
They will then feign disinterest in the subject, the one that they themselves had brought up.
It's really signaling their agreement with rge comlk dogma that is used to identify one as being ideologically acceptable, or politically correct, as that was the term that used to describe this.
I call it being basic as fuck, these are people afraid to express anything that isn't likely to be well received.
The problem with such assumption statements of what is popularly believed is that it gives off the impression that the speaker is at least somewhat informed of the topic, when in reality they are feigning knowledge regarding it.
This leads to a snowball effect as others, not wanting to appear ignorant or ideologically dissident, will just as mindlessly repeat the same thing that "everybody knows", and it leads to a result of a bunch of people who know nothing of which they speak assuming that they are safe in speaking as they do because surely there must be someone in the crowd who has a clue about this.
There isn't, it's just one person who said something false but strongly believed, and falsely characterized their statement as common knowledge, then because they were surrounded by others who would prefer his statement be fact, those around him begin to follow suit, making the same claims, and claiming it's commonly known.
Not one of then can substantiate their statements, as none of them actually know if the claim is true, and the claim often is not true, but they can confidently say what they do because they assume no one would be bold enough to challenge them on the true depths of their knowledge.