Talk:Thought-terminating cliché

.

Maybe this is a poor source? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

The source after where it says "Historical personalities listed to also have used such clichés include Joseph Stalin of Soviet-Russia, Ruhollah Khomeini of the Iranian Revolution, Pol Pot of the former communist country Democratic Kampuchea and Mao Zedong of the Communist Party of China."

First off, that doesn't really contribute much useful information to the article; maybe say some of the ways they used Thought-terminating clichés instead of just a simple list of a few people?

Also, idk about this idea chief: "ADVERTISING AND THE SPREAD OF BUSINESS, DEMOCRACY AND KNOWLEDGE, demonstrates that advertisements benefit both industry, corporations, democracy and spread freedoms." - from the lulu book summary accessed 7/12/2021

Maybe not fully remove https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9&oldid=1028079504 ?

It seems perfectly valid to say that some people do use the label of conspiracy theory as a TTC. Even relatively commonly accepted ideas can get dismissed as conspiracy by some people sometimes, which in that use is definitely a thought-terminating cliché. This is also not a matter of political opinion here either, as the person who undid that edit stated. Political ideas aren't the only kinds of ideas that can be dismissed as conspiracy by someone as a TTC.

"End of"

I'd suggest the Britishism of ending an argument with "end of" as an example of this. Although I don't know if it is really a "cliche" but it is a kind of "punctuation" intended to terminate any debate.

"Examples" section is questionable.

The sources are opinion pieces, which means I can't use the "essay" tag as the editor is not sharing their own opinions, and is clearly citing sources in good faith. However, I question whether the section provides objective and helpful information. I have opted for the "tone" tag and I hope that is accurate.

Example: "It's all good." My personal opinion aside, this is a political opinion piece from Medium and no more reliable than a well-written Reddit comment. The author does not have credentials listed and appears to be a blogger or content writer. Additionally, I don't think this is a helpful example ad the phrase is more in the realm of social niceties than argumentative rhetoric. "No prob" could be similarly analyzed but to do so would be silly.

Second example: "Lies of the devil." Unless the article wants to delve into the use of TECs in religion, this is just confusing. It's not a widely used idiom, more of a concept, and someone unfamiliar with the subject wouldn't understand how this fits.

I think we should limit the article to a few highly exemplary, well-sourced phrases which are clearly obstructive, established as clichés, and preferably derived from the defining source material. 2603:7081:1603:A300:1141:BDAB:9C4E:6D99 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added the "It's complicated" cliche, which is notable for the accusation of gatekeeping and ending conversations related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8d01:c650:e4a7:7141:1b26:ef16 (talk) 15:14, 1 June (UTC)

Original research

I have a suspicion that part of the article is dubious original research. The lede say: "They only become so when used to intentionally dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic." Meaning this article should specifically employ references which discuss the use of cliches as a demagogical trick. Take any taboo as an example. Some subjects may be forbidden to discuss for cultural or religious reasons. But it does not give a Wikipedian right to declare that some taboo is a TTC.

Therefore I will review whether the refs cited do indeed discuss the cases of actual "discussion blockers". --Altenmann >talk 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)