Source/citation shaming

[zenkai]

Is source/citation shaming against the 'rules'?
I often see people link a source for their information when people ask for such and then people hand wave such sources off. They say they are not "credible" sources.
This is partly why I rarely, if ever, link sources to my information. People will just say they "don't believe" the source or simply discredit the source. It is easier just to have the person have them look it up for themselves.

People want to remain ignorant, they don't want to believe anything that contradicts what they believe.

[Orange Joe]

People want to remain ignorant, they don't want to believe anything that contradicts what they believe.

The irony of you posting this in reply to him. The 2 most woke "independents" on the forum.

[zenkai]

The irony of you posting this in reply to him. The 2 most woke "independents" on the forum.

@Allybeboba They also result to personal attacks when they can't source shame. It's sad, they will never grow and learn until they change their ways.

[Santti]

@Allybeboba They also result to personal attacks when they can't source shame. It's sad, they will never grow and learn until they change their ways.

I understand. I'd be ashamed of being Trumpkin as well.

[Orange Joe]

@Allybeboba They also result to personal attacks when they can't source shame. It's sad, they will never grow and learn until they change their ways.

Stay woke!!!!!

[zenkai]

I understand. I'd be ashamed of being Trumpkin as well.

Why are you confessing to me?

- - - Updated - - -

Stay woke!!!!!

I will and I will welcome you once you do to.

[God Save The King]

I generally find using multiple sources to be the best way to source claims. Back in college I learned there were three types of claims; Common Knowledge claims, Uncommon Knowledge claims, and Obscure Knowledge claims. Common knowledge (i.e. sky is blue, people need water, etc) generally need no sourcing. Uncommon knowledge, knowledge others may not have, but is within the realm of the believable, (i.e. the sun is roughly 5800K on the surface) generally need one credible source. Obscure knowledge is the broadest spectrum of claims, encompassing the slightly unbelievable, theories, conspiracies, etc. Those need anywhere from 3+ credible sources.

The issue everyone has (myself included) is biased sourcing. People naturally tend to find sources supporting their beliefs while ignoring contradictory sources. The best way to handle those sources, is to use the ones that support your argument, then quote and argue against the contradictory sources. Another popular method is dichotomous sourcing, which is sourcing from an outlet usually opposed to your viewpoint. I.e. using Breitbart as an argument against Trump, or if the NRA supported background checks (just examples).

Another issue is fact vs. opinion sourcing. Say I have the opinion Trudeau (Canadian PM) is awesome, I can source a bunch of great stuff he did to support that, but that doesn't prove anything, and other people can likely source bad things he did to support an opposing opinion. I think this is where some of the "source shaming" comes from. Linking from a biased source on the topic they have a positive bias for, is not that helpful; in that case its better to get a tempering viewpoint from the "other side" or to collect multiple sources. It's much harder to dismiss my sources for "Trudeau is awesome" if I have 6 sources of great things he did for Canada.

(Note: I used Trudeau as a non-polarizing example)

[Machismo]

Surely you can even out the playing field. Perhaps the left side of the political spectrum doesn't have any "shitty sources" only the right side does.

Since you are the one trying to "even things out" you should provide the sources.

[Allybeboba]

People want to remain ignorant, they don't want to believe anything that contradicts what they believe.

Ignorance is bliss as they say. After all, we do witness it each every day.
After all, according to some only liberals and conservatives exist in today's world. There is nothing that is between.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

My advice is to stay out of politics. It simply comes down to who can bully who better and therefore be the "winner", more often than not. There is little real substance or debate for that matter to be found.

A LOT of news sources, whether it be Breitbart or CNN to even the BBC are extremely skewed in their own right. Some hide it better than others. All-in-all, mainstream media in general is crooked and bought for because it's the most readily available, easiest source of information. So you can cite and hammer on one another with sources all day but there will always be that specter of doubt due to the toxic climate of our modern era; though one might argue it's always been bad and that's why you must rely on some sense of philosophy.

I have my opinions and I realized, they tend to be something of a middle-ground but that's what years of chiseling your processes against both "sides" of an ever aggressive equation does for you. Not to mention an inherent distaste of mob-like mentality. You begin to immediately assume you're somehow wrong when one-too-many people agree with you. Echo-chambers scare the shit out of me, basically.

What I am saying is... intake information, process it, but don't rush to conclusions. Chew on things. Abstain from really discussing politics, especially from a set position. Your life will be a lot better for it.

[Rotted]

If you take your one and only source from wiki - I'll acknowledge it, tell you A) It's probably wrong or exaggerated B) It's just not reliable
If you take your source from a sciency or information website - I'll tell you most websites have some form of bias, even if their legit sites they'll only post the positives never the negatives e.g. a drug was tested, 4 people were cured! but in reality, 10 were tested and 6 suffered horrendous side effects
If you take it from a journal - I'll tell you the same as the above, a lot of journals only take positive articles, not ones that go against something.
If you take a source from a news website - I'll take it with a pinch of salt
If you take it from a newspaper - I'll ignore you

But I'll do that civilized,

But I swear to fucking god, if you take a source from a scientific article and you fucking quote me a sentence from it's abstract or the results, something which aides your statement but the fucking rest of the article doesn't aka it acknowledgtes your point, I will RIP you a new one

[Allybeboba]

Since you are the one trying to "even things out" you should provide the sources.

Sources for what?

- - - Updated - - -

My advice is to stay out of politics. It simply comes down to who can bully who better and therefore be the "winner", more often than not. There is little real substance or debate for that matter to be found.

A LOT of news sources, whether it be Breitbart or CNN to even the BBC are extremely skewed in their own right. Some hide it better than others. All-in-all, mainstream media in general is crooked and bought for because it's the most readily available, easiest source of information. So you can cite and hammer on one another with sources all day but there will always be that specter of doubt due to the toxic climate of our modern era; though one might argue it's always been bad and that's why you must rely on some sense of philosophy.

I have my opinions and I realized, they tend to be something of a middle-ground but that's what years of chiseling your processes against both "sides" of an ever aggressive equation does for you. Not to mention an inherent distaste of mob-like mentality. You begin to immediately assume you're somehow wrong when one-too-many people agree with you. Echo-chambers scare the shit out of me, basically.

What I am saying is... intake information, process it, but don't rush to conclusions. Chew on things. Abstain from really discussing politics, especially from a set position. Your life will be a lot better for it.

According to many there is no middle ground, you are either with them or you are against against them. There really isn't an in between.

[Dug]

Ignorance is bliss as they say. After all, we do witness it each every day.
After all, according to some only liberals and conservatives exist in today's world. There is nothing that in between.

A middle ground does exist. Neither you nor Zenkai are there though no matter how much you want everyone else to believe.

[Machismo]

Sources for what?

- - - Updated - - -



According to many there is no middle ground, you are either with them or you are against against them. There really isn't an in between.

You were the one asking for examples of bad sources on the left, in order to show both sides do it. Why not produce such things yourself?

And you are hardly a moderate, or part of that "middle ground." Your posting history is indicative of that.

[Allybeboba]

You were the one asking for examples of bad sources on the left, in order to show both sides do it. Why not produce such things yourself?

And you are hardly a moderate, or part of that "middle ground." Your posting history is indicative of that.

Simply because I don't poke fun at the current administration and call them immature names? Did I do that to the previous one?

[Machismo]

Simply because I don't poke fun at the current administration and call them immature names? Did I do that to the previous one?

Well, you asked for citations when you were the one trying to make a claim. You have consistently defended the administration, even against a huge amount of evidence. When confronted with such things, you resorted to shitposting and deflecting, because you don't really have an argument. Then of course there's the whataboutism, which you seem to love a great deal. A true moderate or "independent" would be able to actually condemn the administration for their numerous failings. Since you won't, then it's clear where you actually stand. Stay Woke!!!

[Fojos]

What exactly is a "garbage source" and what isn't?

The garbage source is the one that disagrees with his opinions.

Thats why I use mediabiaschecker otherwise I use literal books to get my information. You can't argue with a book even if it was written say twenty or thirty years ago.

You do know that anyone can write a book?

[Taso]

The garbage source is the one that disagrees with his opinions.



You do know that anyone can write a book?

You do know that anyone can write an article right?
Still I'll take a book. Even a primary one.
Generally speaking I read history and geography and general science stuff. So I do not know what you exactly mean that anyone can write a book. It still requires some understanding and time so its not that easy.

[Dezerte]

I think anyone claiming to be "woke" is full of themselves. It just seems like a repackaged "You're sheeple"-deal.

[Fojos]

You do know that anyone can write an article right?
Still I'll take a book. Even a primary one.
Generally speaking I read history and geography and general science stuff. So I do not know what you exactly mean that anyone can write a book. It still requires some understanding and time so its not that easy.

What I mean is that there's no automatic qualification to a book. People with opinions (but without expert knowledge) write books about these subjects all the time, with real names or under an alias.