rule

the title was a reference to this meme:


(except it said 41kb, I can’t find that version for some reason)

EDIT: shoutout to @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world for making a version of the gif that’s actually 41kb

EDIT 2: it wasn’t loading for some people so I changed it back, womp womp :(

    • zero924@piefed.socialEnglish
      333·
      4 days ago

      That’s not how that meme works. You were treating trust as a binary “do not trust” or “trust”. They called you out on it because trust is obviously a multi-factor continuum. You might trust your coworker to do their job, but not trust them with your phone passcode. Meanwhile, you might trust a partner with your phone passcode (mileage may vary) but not trust them to make a doctor’s appointment because they’re anxious or something Obviously it depends on the person, but you get the idea. Trust isn’t just a binary “trust” or “not trust”.

      That’s not even taking into account that “the government” isn’t actually one singular entity but rather a whole group of individuals who all have their own agendas, some for the better and some for the worse, and it’s the citizenry’s job to steer the group toward a desired outcome by electing people with similar ideals. For example, would I trust Donald Trump to have anyone’s interest in mind but himself? No. But I would trust Mamdani to have people’s best interest in mind. That doesn’t mean I trust or distrust “the government” but rather that I trust people in government who’ve shown they deserve it and distrust those who’ve shown they don’t. And I would trust neither with my phone passcode. Trust is not binary.

      • NotAnOtter@lemmus.orgEnglish
        1112·
        4 days ago

        My absolute distrust of governments does not conclude literally anything about my perspective on trust in personal relationships, you waffle hater.

        • Xoriff@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          4 days ago

          Out of curiosity, do you believe that the “waffle hater” concept implies that all forms of analogy are flawed and not to be used? I think you’re confusing the waffle hater thing for “I don’t understand how analogies work”. Or are a troll. My troll radar is terrible.

          • NotAnOtter@lemmus.orgEnglish
            24·
            4 days ago

            I’m engaging earnestly / not trolling. You can disagree with me but I’m not just stating random BS.

            They took my statement about distrusting governments and concluded I have a bad relationship with trust in personal relationships. But those are fundamentally different things.

            Even if I trusted every individual in a group, that doesn’t necessarily mean I should trust the group behavior. One easy example is the Tragedy of the Commons but there are better examples if you spend more time on it. I trust farmers to care for their land and try to grow the best crops with the resources as their disposal; I do not trust them to collectively reduce water consumption for the health of the ecosystem. Etc. Trusting group behavior is fundamentally different from trusting individuals. They didn’t make a metaphor I disagreed with they just took my statement A and made a totally unrelated conclusion about B. Hence waffle vs pancake.

            I could make a stronger argument centered on distrust of government but the above serves to defend the waffle refutation specifically.

            • Xoriff@lemmy.worldEnglish
              101·
              4 days ago

              Right. But you can see the implied logical step right?

              1. Corupt politicians in government have screwed society over, therefore I distrust the government as a whole
              2. Skipped: assuming that my reasoning is consistent and that behaviors of the members of a group reflects on the group as a whole…
              3. I don’t trust my group of friends because some of them are assholes

              I also distrust the government as a starting default. But as soon as I have more specific information about specific members of that group, I change my trust level to reflect the more specific data I now have rather than falling back to my default assumptions inherited from the group.

              Let’s use your analogy. If one farmer did use water responsibly, would you not encourage, and set them up as a model example of The Good Farmer? Or would you scoff and say “give them time. All farmers are selfish in the end”?