Anyone here know if there's a specific name for a logical fallacy that consists of referring to any behaviours as "subconscious" or "unconscious" actions?
For example: "OP, you are a faggot."
"No, i'm not"
"You are, but it's an unconscious action, so you don't know you're a faggot"
>>53536628
man, it's been a while since I saw Zalgo.
>>53535974
feminists trying to sell you the prefrontal patriarchy shit again?
Just wait, /pol/ will answer sooner or later.
>>53535974
psychology
>>53535974
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error, also known as the correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics (personality) to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation rather than considering the situation's external factors. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior, where situational factors are more easily recognized and can thus be taken into consideration. Conversely, from the other perspective, this error is known as the actor–observer bias, in which people tend to overemphasize the role of a situation in their behaviors and underemphasize the role of their own personalities.
>>53536857
Actually, yes. I get to the point of being told it's "subconscious", at which point I throw up my hands, and tell them that by that rationale, everything is, and there's no argument and no possibility of one.
At which point...blank stares.
>>53536945
oh, cool. Thanks
>>53537012
If you argue with women you'll waste your own time and they'll lose respect for you.
It's actually subconscious.
>>53537393
Well, these people aren't all women, but they're all SJW at least, so I guess...same thing.
Probably best not to play.
