Commonly misunderstood phrases that annoy you

[Paradox Mystic]

Leftists often misuse Karl Popper's idea of the Paradox of Intolerance because they don't actually read what he wrote on the topic (He did not believe words are violence equal to pistols, fists and bombs.)

Ironically most of them are exactly the type of people Popper would say a tolerant society is entirely rational to be intolerant towards and thus justified to physically remove them.

 

[skykiii]

Leftists often misuse Karl Popper's idea of the Paradox of Intolerance because they don't actually read what he wrote on the topic (He did not believe words are violence equal to pistols, fists and bombs.)

Ironically most of them are exactly the type of people Popper would say a tolerant society is entirely rational to be intolerant towards and thus justified to physically remove them.

Can you give a more thorough explanation please? I never was able to find Karl's original document so I'm not sure what exactly the Left gets wrong about it. And yes I did Google it.

 

[Paradox Mystic]

Can you give a more thorough explanation please? I never was able to find Karl's original document so I'm not sure what exactly the Left gets wrong about it. And yes I did Google it.

Spoiler: excerpt on the Paradox of Tolerance

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Not sure if this qualifies, but a lot of logical fallacies are misunderstood:
Begging the question
Okay, that one's pretty much been perverted to have a whole new meaning so it's arguably more obnoxious to hear someone be corrected on it. But its original meaning is more like "circular reasoning" than having anything to do with a question that a statement raises.
Ad hominim
It's not just a fancy way to refer to an insult. It specifically means you're taking qualities about the person as a reason to not take what they're saying seriously.
Slippery Slope
It being a fallacy doesn't mean no slopes are slippery. If you provide a well-reasoned argument for why A leads to B leads to Children being sacrificed to Moloch, then you have not committed a fallacy.
People who say "slippery slope isn’t a fallacy" are just as guilty of this misunderstanding.
Appeal to authority
If the person you're appealing to actually has expertise in the relevant field, your argument is not necessarily* fallacious. It is a valid inductive argument that the person with a PhD in chemistry probably knows more about chemistry than your local plumber.
*if you present it as a deductive argument then it would be a fallacy. Saying "it's true because chemistry guy said so" is way different from "I don't know but I'll default to chemistry guy's judgement."

 

[woduqu]

Not sure if this qualifies, but a lot of logical fallacies are misunderstood:
Begging the question
Okay, that one's pretty much been perverted to have a whole new meaning so it's arguably more obnoxious to hear someone be corrected on it. But its original meaning is more like "circular reasoning" than having anything to do with a question that a statement raises.
Ad hominim
It's not just a fancy way to refer to an insult. It specifically means you're taking qualities about the person as a reason to not take what they're saying seriously.
Slippery Slope
It being a fallacy doesn't mean no slopes are slippery. If you provide a well-reasoned argument for why A leads to B leads to Children being sacrificed to Moloch, then you have not committed a fallacy.
People who say "slippery slope isn’t a fallacy" are just as guilty of this misunderstanding.
Appeal to authority
If the person you're appealing to actually has expertise in the relevant field, your argument is not necessarily* fallacious. It is a valid inductive argument that the person with a PhD in chemistry probably knows more about chemistry than your local plumber.
*if you present it as a deductive argument then it would be a fallacy. Saying "it's true because chemistry guy said so" is way different from "I don't know but I'll default to chemistry guy's judgement."

Begging the question: There's just two unrelated meanings at this point. One that is much less used is the fallacious assumption of one's conclusion or circular reasoning. The other is just about a statement or observation that leads to an obvious question, but there's no idea of a fallacy at all in it.

Ad hominem: Right. Calling someone a fat-ass isn't an ad hominem, it's an insult, but saying their claims about healthy foods is wrong because they're fat is one.

Slippery slope: Yea, people can get this wrong on both ends. Someone who merely assumes that a move in some direction will automatically lead to further movement in that direction is reasoning fallaciously. But, also, someone who ignores reasons given in support of further movement and dismisses it as slippery slope thinking doesn't understand the point of the fallacy.

Appeal to authority: I think you explained this really well. Nothing to add here.

 

[Ookoo Squad]

"A man is a wolf to man".

You always hear this quote in its truncated, incomplete form, taken to mean "humans are mean to each other". You rarely hear the full version: "a man is a wolf, not a man, to those who don't know him." Meaning, "an unknown man is by default a threat". It's a saying about stranger danger, primarily.

 

[SIMIΔN]

People use it when they mean to say obliterated and it has always annoyed me.

Decimation was a severe punishment for soldiers who routed, something that could have quite have easily obliterated an army.

You're not the personification of malnutrition.

Death/Disease/War are too busy to shitpost here, but with obesity being so high I'm free.

People tossing around "The customer is always right" as some sort of rule that allows customers to be obnoxious and entitled to the point of absurdity

Despite coining this maxim, Mr Selfridge died a pauper

 

[A-Stump]

Decimation was a severe punishment for soldiers who routed, something that could have quite have easily obliterated an army.

Decimated literally means 'to be reduced by a tenth'.

Not as many people use it.

 

[SIMIΔN]

Decimated literally means 'to be reduced by a tent

That's what the word breaks down to, but the term came from the punishment where a disgraced unit had to kill 1/10 of their own comrades like after a catastrophic defeat.

 

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

The customer being right in terms of taste sounds better but it's still a dogshit take. So many better ways to just say "let them be right whenever it leads to a sale"

Reminds of the cringe I felt when I read "TFW when I feel good"

i always bring high dps per second

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

People using literally incorrectly, like someone who is literally retarded. No, that person is not retarded. Or to me, literally is in not meeting by the literal sense.
Also, there's nothing wrong with using me and him and not him and I. I an English teacher who constantly would give me points all for that. And I pointed out that plenty of people have used that in the English language over the decades, so it's a perfectly acceptable form of speech.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

People using literally incorrectly, like someone who is literally retarded. No, that person is not retarded. Or to me, literally is in not meeting by the literal sense.
Also, there's nothing wrong with using me and him and not him and I. I an English teacher who constantly would give me points all for that. And I pointed out that plenty of people have used that in the English language over the decades, so it's a perfectly acceptable form of speech.

You contradict yourself. Because it's not longer incorrect to use literally to mean figuratively. Plenty of people have used that in the English language over the decades.

 

[skykiii]

The customer being right in terms of taste sounds better but it's still a dogshit take. So many better ways to just say "let them be right whenever it leads to a sale"

i always bring high dps per second

Why am I suddenly reminded of the time Irate Gamer broadcast "by via satellite"?

 

[Lemmingwiser]

"let them be right whenever it leads to a sale"

Sounds a lot worse to be honest.

 

[Uncle Phil]

I think this is a transposition that fits very well, though. Like baseball, human coupling is fiercely competitive and being too kind and considerate can be a detriment.

"Nice guys finish last" is also sometimes repurposed (smirkingly) as a way to say "you should make sure the woman gets off before you do".

 

[The Secret Sauce]

Not a commonly misunderstood phrase per se, but "sub par" has always bugged me. If you're playing golf, the goal is to be as far below par as you can. If you're sub par, you're doing well. So why does sub par suddenly mean "not good enough" outside of golf? Am I missing something?

 

[sherwoods110]

People using literally incorrectly, like someone who is literally retarded. No, that person is not retarded. Or to me, literally is in not meeting by the literal sense.
Also, there's nothing wrong with using me and him and not him and I. I an English teacher who constantly would give me points all for that. And I pointed out that plenty of people have used that in the English language over the decades, so it's a perfectly acceptable form of speech.

People using the word "literally" incorrectly has been driving me absolutely insane the last few years. It's just another sign of the erosion of language and society in general. It has become just as bad as people incorrectly using the word "like" and abusing the hell out of it. "I literally JUST went to the store." NO, you just went to the store. Why are you adding the word literally to sentences like this? Knock it off. Use your brain! Think!

 

[fyad]

"I could care less".

I can't put into words how much disdain I have for this phrase, so I'll let an angry Britbong do it for me.

but i came here to say this. there's nothing that annoys me more than "i could care less" does

 

[Womble of Wimbledon]

A lot of people misuse "the Dunning-Kruger effect".

The effect describes how the lowest performers in a given test will tend to overestimate their performance, and the highest performers will tend to underestimate their performance. That being said, the lowest performers still estimate their performance to be lower than that of the other test-takers. It's not as if they estimate they aced the test and got an F in reality, it's more like they expected to get a D and they actually got an F. Meanwhile the highest performers estimated an A- when they actually got an A+.

People use it when describing people who have absolutely no knowledge of a subject or ability at a task believing that they know more/could do better than a professional or expert. That is a completely different phenomenon.

 

[greenthrowaway]

Not a commonly misunderstood phrase per se, but "sub par" has always bugged me. If you're playing golf, the goal is to be as far below par as you can. If you're sub par, you're doing well. So why does sub par suddenly mean "not good enough" outside of golf? Am I missing something?

Par came before golf. Par meant the standard or equivalent. Golf introduced par as the standard in which an “expert” golfer is expected to complete the hole. Basically one shot per X yards of what is considered reachable distance with modern equipment plus a putt to approach and a tap-in. So hitting a 2 on a par-3 is better than par, not sub par in quality , but sub par in terms of beneath the strokes of play. The same happens in finance where purchasing an asset sub par like silver below spot or par is considered a positive. So par is a standard (expert strokes expected in golf, spot price in metals) , sub is beneath that, but that can be good when lower equals better in either.