Have you not seen the spoof of
HBO’s Girls, starring Laraine Newman as Hannah Horvath and Wendie Malick as Marnie Michaels 36 years into the future? Well you should, because it’s pretty fucking spot-on, plus it’s the cultural zeitgeist, plus it’s five days old, so all your friends have seen it already, and you’re probably definitely missing out on some references.
What does this have to do with us? Well besides being deeply concerned with your cultural educations,
Girls Season 38 has given us a powerful glimpse into how hipsters of the future will eat. Obviously, Hannah’s stuffing her face for the entire time she isn’t getting boned ( by Martin goddamn Starr), and this provides useful information on what the foodscape of Greenpoint circa 2049 will look like. Below, a helpful slideshow of all the foods consumed on Girls Season 38.
There's no cross domain hackery or tracking voodoo, it's just some sweet jQuery animations.
Please, think of the animations.
In the meantime, enjoy the html version below. I guess. If that's your thing.
Appeal To Authority
Let's say you're a climate change skeptic, and you're arguing with a friend who's very passionate about this issue. They may say at one point in the conversation something like, "Well, according to scientists at Generic University, climate change is happening at a rate of VERY VERY fast." You might counter by asking what evidence said scientists have to support their argument. And your friend will shoot back with, "Well, I don't know, but they're scientists, they have degrees, so shut up and listen to the experts!"
This is what's known as an appeal to authority, a fallacy in which you support your argument by citing people in high positions of influence or power who agree with you, but can't make the argument on the substance. You can't just tell your friends, "Obama said blah" or "Romney said blah" and make that the be-all end-all of your argument. And on the climate change debate, it goes the other way too. Last December,
Fox & Friends said the science of climate change is in dispute because there are accredited scientists (few, but they do exist) who do not accept mainstream scientific views of climate change. Fine, be a skeptic if you want, but at least understand WHY those particular scientists are skeptical.
The bandwagon fallacy basically boils down to this: just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it true. And just because a majority of people might have one strong opinion on a political topic, it doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Can we even begin to count the number of times people on both sides of the health care debate have trotted this one out? Polls have come out showing the majority of Americans
support Obamacare and also don't support Obamacare.
Neither of those polls are particularly compelling reasons for doing anything about Obamacare because public opinion does not correlate with what is necessarily good or bad, right or wrong.
Do you ever say things in a conversation like "all liberals are godless" or "all conservatives are rednecks"? Then you just might be committing the logical fallacy of composition and division! This fallacy simply dictates that you can't just take part of something and apply it to that thing as a whole. I've observed this fallacy used most often when talking about the two big political movements in the United States today: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
All of the Occupy Wall Street people are just
hobos and bums? Well, believe it or not, there are actually people in the movement who don't look like hippies or play in drum circles. They care about the message. On the other side, all Tea Partiers are homophobes and bigots? Well, here's a video of some Tea Partiers who would beg to differ.
No True Scotsman
All you need to know about the No True Scotsman fallacy can be boiled down to two words: RINO and DINO. This fallacy, also known as an appeal to purity, is when you shift the standards of what constitutes a certain kind of person or thing to redefine it. The reason it's called the No True Scotsman fallacy is because of
the example the site provides: a man declares no Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, but another Scotsman pipes up to say he puts sugar on his porridge, and the first man proudly insists that "no true Scotsman" would do such a thing.
It is possible to be a pro-choice Republican or a pro-gun Democrat. Just because you might have one or two positions out of sync with your political party, it doesn't give anyone the right to say that they are officially no longer a true Republican or Democrat. Last month Joe Scarborough rebutted Republicans saying that Jeb Bush was a RINO by scolding them for thinking his differences with the party mean he's not going to play a role in the future of the GOP.
This is my favorite logical fallacy, because whenever anyone starts to use it, you know they are desperate. This fallacy was helpfully summed up by Mediaite's
Jon Bershad in a column calling out political pundits for dodging criticism of their guys by turning the tables on the other guys. " is a sexist? Well, so is Rush Limbaugh Bill Maher then!" "Bill Maher is not a sexist, the Republicans are all sexists!"
This bears repeating, but just because the other guy does it doesn't make it right. Clean up your own bedroom before yelling at your brother for making a mess in his.
Check out the whole episode.