Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.

Example:

In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    71·
    6 hours ago

    i feel like we should be able to beat the living shit out of people intentionally spreading political misinformation.

    Like im sorry, this may not meet instance rules, or whatever, but like, holy fuck, the amount of shit you can just lie about, without people asking question, kneecaps should’ve happened years ago, what the fuck are we doing bro.

  • mkhopper@lemmy.world
    3·
    6 hours ago

    “Seen”.
    Holy fuck, “seen”.

    I honestly think that using this word incorrectly has gotten worse over the last few years. Hearing someone say, “yeah, I seen her yesterday” just makes me want to punch the wall.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    72·
    8 hours ago

    “Saying the quiet part out loud.”

    Saying things out loud is how you say them.

    It’s “saying the quiet part loud.”

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    9 hours ago

    On the US one thing is different from another, not than. One thing differs from another. It’s different from the other thing.

    Although in the UK it’s “different to” for some reason.

  • cokeslutgarbage@lemmy.world
    111·
    11 hours ago

    Idk if this counts as a phrase, but on the internet, people talk about their pets crossing the rainbow bridge when they die. That’s not how the rainbow bridge poem goes. Pets go to a magnificent field when they die. They are healed of all injury and illness. When you die, they find you in the field and you cross the bridge together. It’s much sweeter the way it was written than the way people use it.

  • bitchkat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    13 hours ago

    It’s always going to be the “of” people. Its “would have”, “should have” etc and not “would of”.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    132·
    15 hours ago

    Online in general: using “reductio ad absurdum” as a fallacy.

    It’s a longstanding logical tool. Here’s an example of how it works: let’s assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:

    ∞ + 1 = ∞

    And:

    ∞ - ∞ = 0

    Agreed? If so, then:

    ∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞

    And therefore:

    1 = 0

    Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.

    It’s a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It’s possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it’s not reductio ad absurdum.