I think it's totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn't been true for over a decade?
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
1409 points (97.1% liked)
Memes
45398 readers
849 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
terrifying
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn't going to attack them. It's a defensive organization.
That's what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who "they" were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn't nato)
If somebody would ask for a source it would already be a big improvement. Usually you are just classified as idiot if you dare to have a different view.
Eh. By now I'm pretty sure most people just interact with the internet in order to reconfirm their already held beliefs because they expect the algorithm to give them exactly what they want and a few "wrong" things to dunk on easily for bonus points.
They don't need sources they are already right.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely...
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition's view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I "pepper" is if it's to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don't usually send a large reading list, usually it's one article or book with an explanation of why it's relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with 'sources' that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit...
It's called a "gish gallop" mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of "ain't nobody got time for that". To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it's a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn't do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain't got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they're not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
load more comments
(7 replies)
And that's the same person who makes wild absurd claims but well just go off the rails and tell you to do your own research
"Of course they would say that. Those Liberal, left wing universities, with their peer review, aren't to be trusted.
These hard-right think tanks (masquerading as anything other than a glorified PR firm they are) on the other hand are the definition of unbiased knowledge"
And the sources they claim to have heavily researched often never say what they claim they say or are utterly full of shit.
"My source is that I MADE IT THE FUCK UP"
- President of the USA (probably in a videogame)