Talk:Thought-terminating cliché

this isn't new(s)
Is the more common expression "this isn't new" or "this isn't news"? --Annanoon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends upon the context.
 * What is the modern equivalent of 'Queen Anne's dead'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

recently added example
"It's scientifically proven". It's not great. We all agree that science is, by definition, a process that improves from flawed to less flawed theories, and one that cannot ever set in the stone of absolute proof beyond any doubt. These are indeed things that such a statement might terminate as a gross simplification. However, as a way of addressing things like "HIV doesn't cause AIDS, it's god's punishment", "It's scientifically proven that HIV attacks the immune system in a way that creates the effects of AIDS" is a pretty valid response. The reams of evidence there is compelling, and not going to be overturned by the continual refinement that science engages in. It's a bad and naive example. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can't think of any situations in which someone would use "it's scientifically proven" in such a context that it would be a thought-stopping cliché... unless of course that drive-by BoN who added it in there is some young Earth cretinist trying to strawman evolutionary science or something... should I remove it from the article? -- Goatspeed. 22:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wanted to give it a chance, but someone echoing my thoughts seems like enough reason for me to extricate it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. -- Goatspeed. 17:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree to disagree?
Would this be a valid example of a thought-terminating cliché? -- Pedja  (speak up, contributions) 13:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorta. It's a gray zone.  It's certainly intended to end a conversation.  But I feel like its role is more social lubricant than ideological linchpin?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

context
i can think of many circumstances for most of these phrases where they are simply trite and anyone interpreting them in the way they are described in this section is likely an insufferable pedant who hears these these phrases a lot because no one wants to continue arguing with them.

these examples need the context in which the phrase is being used in order to justify the meaning we have given else it just looks like mean spirited arrogance. there is a dismissive smugness and an over bearing sense of superiority in the explanations that would not be warranted for the situations that spring to mind when i think about the phrases given. i have to think harder to come up with the situations where the description given would actually fit, if its even an accurate description at all.

i dunno. you hear the phrases (the ones people actually use - go fuck yourself yoda) often enough in conversation where they are perfectly fine to use and the worst that could be said of them is that they are trite, we need to specify the context in which their usage would be genuine attempts to silence and deflect criticism or have that effect. some real examples, rather than hypothetical would be best. especially as the article is heavy on the orwellian nature of such phrases, that they are popular with totalitarians and cults as a technique of mind control, it would be good to see examples of relevance and differentiate from the more common everyday examples we all employ versions of.

differentiate between the thought terminating from mere cliche is probably what i am trying to say AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Do you really think "The lord works in mysterious ways" has a real meaningful usage other than as a thought terminator and suppression of religious dissent?   What's the valid application?  Some of them are a bit of a stretch, but real orwellianism is often trite and seemingly benign.  You don't become an authoritarian by actively believing in authoritarianism.  You get that way suppressing your own critical thinking and rejecting criticism of the central dogmas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like it, then I'd like to see you do better.
You see this cliche a lot when someone defends art/movies/etc. against critics. They're saying you're not allowed to have a negative opinion about X, because (they assume) you did not do/make something better than X. It's an attack on someone's supposed lack of qualifications, rather than their actual argument. If this were a valid argument technique, you could just claim something is the best ever, and that would make it immune to any all criticism.
 * "If you don't like this country, then you should leave." is kind of similar in that it's often used to shut down criticism no matter how justified it is.--Joetache4 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)