Lok Tin Wong

ColtCobra

Made this as my online username over six years ago. I searched for "cool gaming usernames", found Colt and Cobra next to each other on the list, and pieced them tegether.

Per5eus

Inspired by Perseus, the Greek hero, and Percy Jackson. Replaced the first s with a 5 because Perseus was taken and 5 resembles s.

LokSn

The chemical symbol of tin is Sn. LokSn is LokTin (my actual name is Lok Tin, with a space in between, but usernames often do not allow spaces).

Let's just get this out of the way. Don't generalize. There may be cases when generalizations are useful, like marketing tailored to a certain audience assumes that this group of people would generally find a specific product appealing. However, generalizing is more often harmful than beneficial.

For example, if there is a video of a man shamelessly cheating on his partner, does this imply that all men are disloyal? If a car accident involves an Asian, does this mean that Asians can't drive properly? I find that wild generalizations are often made to justify one's existing prejudice against others. Don't do that. If we want to unite and reconcile, don't generalize. Judge each individual by their behaviour and not by the behaviour of others in their group.

As one spends sufficient time on social media, one begins to understand that certain choices of wording can provoke certain reactions, even if the intention is not necessarily to rile people up. Let us use the aforementioned car accident example. Compare these two possible titles for a video that shows the accident:

Person Gets Into Car Crash
Asian Gets Into Car Crash

Which of the above is potentially provocative? By provocative, I don't mean that Asians would be enraged by the title. What I mean is that the title evokes prejudice against Asians, giving keyboard warriors an opportunity to generalize. "Asians can't f**king drive." I can already see it.

Ever since taking CPSC 121 and SCIE 113 in UBC, I have been quite hooked on logical fallacies and how often I see them every day, particularly on social media. According to the 16Personalities test, I am a Logistician (ISTJ-T), which probably explains why. Before we begin, I should acknowledge that we all make logical fallacies from time to time. I do too, although I try my very best not to. I am not perfect, but I still think that I can bring a positive change to the world with my words, by, for example, raising awareness of logical fallacies.

If you want to make a good argument, be logical. Yes, I know, pathos is a powerful persuasion technique since we all have emotions, but I believe that logos eventually prevails. I don't have a problem with pathos, given that it supplements logos. You may notice me using pathos later on.

I am going to list several logical fallacies and explain why each of them is problematic.

Fallacy: Criticizing or outright insulting the opponent to make one's argument seem superior. In other words, the ad hominem fallacy.
Problem: I can understand why you might be tempted to do so. If you can paint the opposition as an unreliable source, say, a terrible person, people may reject their ideas and prefer yours instead. Think about this though. When we elect a leader to speak and act on our behalf, we want an individual that actually does things for the people, and not simply because their opponent is supposedly unfit. Just because candidate A makes candidate B sound like a fool does not mean that candidate A is the right person to pick. I am sick and tired of Liberals and Conservatives or Democrats and Republicans repeatedly discrediting each other, without justifying why they are the better party to support. Immature kids bickering to no end. What are we paying them for?

Fallacy: You see ten consecutive videos that all show women cheating on their partners. Hence, you conclude that most/all women are cheaters.
Problem: Good old generalization, but there are actually multiple problems here. First of all, one cannot even deduce the legitimacy of said videos. Content on social media are often faked to provoke viewers. That's pathos. Secondly, even if all the videos are real, how does the behaviour of ten, a hundred, or even a thousand women reflect the behaviour of most or all women? You cannot extrapolate from such a small set of data. To conclude a trend that exists in the majority, one would have to analyze the majority, which is near impossible. Therefore, logically speaking, you can only draw conclusions of the data (say, individuals) that you have studied. The last problem is the social media algorithm. Some may think that if they are frequently shown videos of some behaviour of some people, it is likely that said behaviour of said people is true. "Women cheat. I see it all the time on Instagram Reels." This is doubly wrong. Not only is the frequency of which you are shown something unrelated to the legitimacy of that "something"*, social media algorithms often suggest topics that you've seen in the past. It does not mean that videos of women cheating are "common". The algorithm just feeds you what you want to see, creating what is called a confirmation bias.

Fallacy: Either he is this, or he is that.
Problem: "Only a sith deals in absolutes." Excellent quote. What I'm trying to say is, there is more to a person than just two possible extremes. Just because I am not a Conservative does not mean I am a Liberal. I can be neither.

Fallacy: Is a kilogram of steel heavier, or is a kilogram of feathers heavier? The answer is steel, because steel is heavier than feathers.
Problem: Do not change the question. We are asking, is a kilogram of steel heavier, or a kilogram of feathers? We are not asking if steel is heavier than feathers**. It is incorrect to change the opposition's argument in order to better counter it.

Fallacy: If it rains, I will bring an umbrella. Ah, okay, so if it doesn't rain, I won't bring an umbrella.
Problem: If P then Q is not the same as if not P then not Q (its inverse). If P then Q only tells you that Q is true if P is true, but not what happens if P is false. You cannot make any conclusions if P is false. In this case, we don't know whether or not I will bring an umbrella if it doesn't rain.

Fallacy: If it rains, I will bring an umbrella. Ah, okay, so if I bring an umbrella, it must be raining.
Problem: If P then Q is not the same as if Q then P (its converse). I can bring an umbrella even if it is not raining. The only way to contradict my original logic proposition is if it rains and I don't bring an umbrella.

Fallacy:

Interpretation: TaniaSaucy thinks that the video deserves more than 500 likes, and the lack of likes show that people don't understand/appreciate the said piece of comedy.
Problem 1: Just because people don't press the like button does not mean they don't understand or disagree with the video. I often find myself neglecting the like button, forgetting that it exists. It also explains why YouTubers always remind their viewers to like their videos in show of support.
Problem 2: The number of likes a video gets is relative to the number of views. 500 likes in just a few thousand views (1 like per 10 to 15 views) is not bad at all, where 500 likes in a million views (1 like per 2000 views) is a different case. Simply listing a statistic without disclosing other relevant statistics is a weak argument.
Problem 3: Again, the algorithm is not considered. The reception (number of views, number of likes, or views per like) of a video depends if the algorithm can suggest said video to people who are likely to find it interesting. If the algorithm hasn't shown me this video, I cannot come to appreciate it because I don't know of the video. It does not mean that I (or the general public) am incapable of understanding the video. It just means that I haven't seen the video yet.
Conclusion: "500 likes really shows"... Nope. Tania, I will stop you right here. 500 likes doesn't show anything.

Note: Should I have censored TaniaSaucy's name? I think not. Each person should be responsible for everything that they have said in real life and on the internet. I stand behind everything that I have ever posted on YouTube, Instagram, or any other social media or forum. I know for a fact that I have never left behind anything insulting or discriminative. In the case where I have unintentionally posted inaccurate information, after being corrected, I always apologize for not doing more research beforehand.

I think you get the idea. It is difficult to be completely immune to fallacies. I am certain that I will make many mistakes in future arguments, but hey, at least I self-reflect and know what to look out for.

*Yes, I know. If the majority tells you that eggs are bad, it is quite tempting to believe so, but you should really investigate for yourself. Perhaps I should be more specific. The frequency of which you are shown something on social media is unrelated to the legitimacy of that "something", because social media algorithms will recommend the same kind of videos that you have spent time watching before.

**By the way, "is steel heavier than feathers" is a poor question. Are you asking for the density of steel and feathers? If so, the question should be "is one cubic metre of solid steel heavier, or is one cubic metres of feathers heavier". Even then, you can argue that a cubic metre of feathers is vague, because it depends on how compressed the feathers are. Anyway, it is obvious that a certain quantity of steel may not weigh the same as another quantity of feathers. To say that "steel is heavier than feathers" does not mean much.

This section will cover my opinion on online slang, specifically the ones that are most prevalent in 2025. I think it is natural for a language to evolve and have new slangs as time passes, but I am unsure if we are evolving for the better if new slangs do not make much sense.

As someone who spends a fair bit of time writing, it is upsetting to see nonsensical slangs being used rather than the countless beautiful words in the language. Of course, no one is expected to write formally when commenting online, but should one not uphold basic grammar, proper punctuation (add periods, please!), and use words that are actually widely-accepted?

I have taken note of the evolution of online slangs in the past several years, from "noob" and "bruh", to "simp", to "cap", "mid" and "ohio", to the more recent "skibidi" and "aura". It is interesting to see how some of these words last mere months before being dominated by new slangs. For the record, I am still someone who says "that's cool" or "that's awesome", rather than following the latest trends.

Disclaimer: I am taking extra care to not sound like language in the past is superior to the present. I only think that words should "make sense". Too many instances when past generations mock new generations without actually listening to what young people are saying. Boomers mock millennials, millennials mock Gen Zs, and Gen Zs mock Gen Alphas. Sometimes, newer generations will turn back at older generations and mock in return. This is an unacceptable vicious cycle.

Lock in

I have to start with this, since it sounds so much like my name. To lock in is to be focused on something, whether it be video games, playing a sport (especially in a match), or studying. I think it may derive from homing missiles locking in on a target. When we say a missile is locked in/on, it is focused on a target. The usage of this slang is about the same. My opinion on lock in? Although I may be biased towards favouring it, but I think an objective perspective would also see lock in as a more reasonable slang relative to what I am about to cover, especially since one can logically explain the origin of lock in.

Skibidi

Something to do with a floating head in a toilet. I do not acknowledge this as a legitimate word. It is a producable sound, but not a word, and has no useful meaning. Perhaps I have no right to judge what constitutes as a word or not, but to express my opinion, not once in my life will I ever utter this "slang".

I've done some research. Apparently skibidi has been added to the Cambridge Dictionary. Does this mean that the general public acknowledges this as a legitmate word?

Aura

I think the usage of aura as a slang is a misinterpretation of the word. Aura is a feeling or atmosphere that someone or something gives off, for example, "a menacing aura", or "a friendly aura". Aura alone is neutral, and should be preceded by an adjective to describe the nature of the aura. As an online slang, it is used as a currency, similar to social credits. I think it makes no sense, since "100 aura" does not imply whether the said aura is good or bad.

Cook

It took me a long time to understand what cook means. To cook is to do well on something, for example, "I'm cooking in Chemistry" means "I'm doing well in Chemistry". To be cooked is the opposite. "I'm getting cooked in Chemistry" means "I'm doing horribly in Chemistry", or "Chemistry is destroying me". If Person A cooks Person B, it may mean that Person A has defeated or humiliated Person B, similar to roast in slang. "Tom cooked you" and "you got roasted by Tom" mean about the same. Cook, roast, or even grill are quite similar slangs and all originate from the idea of cooking food. This I find very interesting.

Bro

Instead of referring to the subject by their name, internet users have been using bro to call almost everyone. For example, "bro thinks he's smart" or "bro gained generational aura". I think we are degrading to using a singular word to describe everything. Bro is short for brother. If only used in the context of chatting with one's friends, or one's literal brother, it would make more sense to me.

Ohio

What is so special about Ohio? By my understanding, the Ohio slang is used to describe something crazy or unusual, though I cannot be sure.

Alpha/Sigma (male, but not necessarily)

To say that certain behaviours make one the "alpha/sigma male", or in the other words, the superior male, is absurd. Note that this is not only applied to men, but usually used to describe men. Apparently men can be categorized into brackets of sigma, alpha, and beta. Ridiculous.

Buddy

Although this is not the definition of the actual word, buddy as a slang is almost always used in a derogatory context. When Person A calls Person B "buddy", it gives off the same feeling as an adult calling a child "buddy". Perhaps it sounds derogatory because Person B is implied to be a child. Because of this negative connotation, I never use buddy.

Simp

I think this is a rather misused slang. I interpret simp as someone (usually a male) who obsesses over/spoils a female to the extent that it takes a toll on the former's dignity. However, standing up for a female is sometimes enough to get called as a simp. Now I am sure we are evolving in the right direction.

Chat

An imitation of streamers who call their live chat, well, chat. Here is an example. When asking the general (online) populace, instead of "what do you all think?", one might say, "chat, what do we think?", as though one is interacting with an imaginary live chat. I suppose there is nothing wrong with this slang, but I do not use it since I am not a streamer talking to a live chat.

End note: I have seen videos of Gen Alphas being embarrassed when a non-Gen Alpha uses their slangs. It is almost as if Gen Alphas acknowledge that their own slangs are embarrassing. In contrary, I would never be embarrassed if someone uses the slangs that I often use.
To not fall into the trap of generalizing, I know that this might not reflect the majority of Gen Alphas.

• loktinw0620@gmail.com
• [REDACTED]
• Canada