It's gotten even worse in the past year. Most of them sound like they're parroting AI summaries of blog posts and sprinkling stupid ass cutaway gags to memes. Like rather than actually consuming the entire body of context around a subject and having an informed take, they're just giving shallow thoughts and trying to monetize.
Any YouTuber whose whole angle is to spicy commentary on current events in tech/programming is definitely part of the trash heap.
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it's own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It's page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I've easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is "winning" as soon as it's asked
Common knowledge
You don’t have to back up absolutely everything you say with evidence (or you’d soon run out of wordcount to advance your own point properly!). Some things are common knowledge. That could mean that a fact is just generally known by everyone, and not disputed or in doubt. This could include:
•facts such as London is the capital of the United Kingdom
•well documented dates such as the start of the First World War in 1914
•H20 being the chemical formula for water
•things which everyone knows from their lived experience, such as the sky is blue.
those examples I could accept but I think a lot of people use imparted wisdom as "common knowledge" and we should drill down on any claim that is disputed.
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn't matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
Lets not forget that it's about more than just that person. It's about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
It all boils down to bad faith. They don't care what argument you make, you'll never sway them. They're not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you're finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they've already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
but those that aren't receptive are literally the problem. american politics has been a 60/40 split with unequal representation for decades. the gears of government are locked in a bitter struggle where not enough is getting done and the problems keep piling up.
i can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not but this is godawful moral advice.
"stay comfy and forget about it if you can"
do we or do we not have an obligation to be stewards of the earth? obviously the decision is a personal one. i guess i've decided with my post existential thoughts that we do, and that if you don't agree with me, i don't want you on my team. or the planet for that matter.
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it's the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don't even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn't fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn't afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We're really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right.
Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn't even really solve the problem, because we're all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I'm having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
I remember when one conservative parent was absolutely furious with GW Bush over invading Iraq. Then they were all in MAGA for nine years. They've finally disavowed that one, but I don't know how much time they have to come further left, or how the trajectory may shift. We actually had a pleasant few days together, with each of us clenching our teeth and walking away a few times, but that's any relationship. Some things we (everyone) feel strongly about really aren't worth that argument. In fact, a lot of them.
Well that's why the point of arguing with other people isn't really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it's just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
The goal should be to have less uninformed people overall by educating the population. But unfortunately the people in charge keep voting against funding education (and basically anything beneficial to society).
Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice
Every one who wants something other then what i want is uninformed.
To the uninformed, no representation for you. Get over it. Go to therapy to cope with your new forever.
ngl, I don't comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya'll, I've got a job and a life, I can't/don't want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly "infill" everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that's what they see.
I’m a professional writer for a newspaper. It’s something we inherently think about every time we put pen to paper as it were.
Usually we have a good insight as to our physical paper’s readership. They tend to be older, well-educated, decent reading comprehension, etc. But since our paper is also available online, we also have to factor in the wider readership when the articles get shared. That’s where it gets tricky.
As you’ve pointed out, reading comprehension has sharply declined in general. I love the internet, but there’s no denying it also had some bad consequences with regards to people’s attention spans. The ‘too long, didn’t read mindset.
Because of that, we tend to front-load articles with the needed info and make paragraphs easy to skim. We also tend to write shorter and with less ‘fancy words’. Basically, I need to dumb things down to about 70 percent of my normal writing level. And even with that, you get dumb questions and comments by people who clearly didn’t bother to properly read and understand the first paragraph, much less the rest of the article.
It can certainly be frustrating. People used to read things to learn and get smarter. Now they just want their biases confirmed in as few words as possible.
I'm wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.
I've had people go "I don't have time to read 3 paragraphs!", as though that's some kind of argument against the point I'm trying to make. Attention spans are down.
I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.
For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.
It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.
This is my first exposure to this idea and it's quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that's a recipe for disaster.
The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn't help the perception that a question is actually an attack.
I first heard about it due to my buddy (a high school English teacher) complaining about how his incoming students were incredibly far behind in basic reading comprehension skills. We ended up having a pretty long talk about it, and he mentioned that all of his colleagues have noticed the same thing.
I did some digging, and discovered that language teachers everywhere have basically been lamenting the fact that the upcoming generation just straight up doesn’t know how to interpret media when it falls outside of their personal algorithms. I ended up talking with another buddy of mine (a writer for a magazine) and he mentioned that they have started needing to change the way they write, because people have simply lost the ability to comprehend what they read. Skimming the first one or two paragraphs is the new norm, even for in-depth news articles. So they have to load as much content into the early paragraphs as possible.
Yep. And they do it for things that you KNOW were covered in everyone’s basic education. Stuff everyone should already know without someone needing to explain it.
People used to have the decency to at least feel embarrassment if they needed to have something explained that a child learns in school. But these days people actually get angry if you tell them they’re wrong 🤷♂️
I've felt this exact feeling before. It feels like trying to discuss algebra with someone who didn't learn basic addition. If we can't agree on certain ground rules then discussion is never going to be productive, or will take 3x as long to come to the same conclusion. I feel like it's willful stubbornness as much it is not understanding. People just google points to support their argument instead of being curious and researching the topic.
I agree! Don't run your mouth in public then complain when someone asks you how do you know the thing you're running your mouth about is true. If in 2034 someone who has never seen snow wants more evidence than some idiot on the Internet's feelings on the topic then asking is totally justified.
Winter is on its way out due to climate change. In around the year 2100, it's estimated that there will only be 3 seasons left, no winter. And summer will be much longer and much hotter. So the 3 seasons will be spring, then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That's it.
But you can already see the disappearance of winter today because there's much less snow and it's much warmer than like 30 years ago. (Speaking for Germany)
30 years ago we definitely had snow in winter. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But I remember playing in snow basically every winter as a kid. And I’m living in a very mild region of Germany. Now I’m considering all season tires (just for legal purposes) to not change wheels twice a year, since there is maybe some snow for one week in total.
Spoke with a guy this week who was born in the 30s. He said winter back then was much harder. Whole lakes or even rivers were frozen solid. I can’t imagine being able to walk to the other side of a major river…
I remember ice-skating every winter as a kid. Rivers were frozen over solid, too. Sometimes, there were two separate layers of ice on top of each other, each being several cm thick. It kind of went away in the late 90s. I guess everybody just thought the ice and snow would return someday. Now even snow has gotten really, really rare where I live.
I grew up in Ohio in the 1970s (which was admittedly a rough decade as far as cold weather was concerned). Generally, the first snowfall was some time in September and at some point in October the ground would be completely covered in snow and you wouldn't see grass again until April. The snow wasn't completely gone until May. So essentially it was six months of Winter, three months of Summer and a month and a half each for Spring and Fall. It is certainly not anything like that any more.
Source? Because that's so not true. Birds are an invention by the government, they are robots to spy on us. The government wants us to believe they always existed. It's all fabricated lies created by the government. Source
I fucking hate newsletter emails but this is the only site I registered for one. I'm launching my ass off every single time. 😂 I love satire haha
I've heard a saying, two things you should never do on the Internet are argue or explain. It takes up a lot of mental energy and time to do it for no reward.
Yes. The thing to remember is in many cases you aren't explaining for the person you are debating with or answering a question for. You are doing it for others who may read the conversation.
I've had things brought to light in online discussion change my mind or educate me many times. When I see someone claim these conversations are useless or a waste of time, I just think they are really setting weird criteria for what constitutes a waste of time.
Sure, sometimes I ain't got no time for that, but other times I do, and I figure the same is true for many others as well.
Also trolls and propagandists employ bad faith tactics specifically to make their opposition do the bulk of the world, which they either ignore after or they just laugh at for some bullshit reason they claim is a gotcha.
There is an Islamophobic author who has been employing shit like in his books since the 90s. It isn't new at all.
I asked my employer provided AI assistant if this is true and it assured me that natural snowfall was disinformation invented by leftists in order to destroy our capitalist utopia.
Same here in Slovenia. 15 years ago we had at least 30cm of snow each winter that would stick around. Now if we even get any snowfall and not just rain it either rains the same day and the snow is gone, or the rain comes a day later and the snow is once again gone.
Also the local lake used to freeze every year. It has froten once in the last 15 years.
There must be a way to have winter back. We have to do it for future generations at any cost. I refuse to live in a tropical hell just because some CEOs couldn't fuck off.
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.
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.
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.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you've read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren't Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
"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"
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.
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that's without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
I never said Russia didn't invade Ukraine, my point is specifically that calling NATO a "defensive alliance" despite it's sole purpose being maintenance of Western Imperialism is laughable. People who understand ACAB but defend NATO as "purely defensive" have an inability to understand imperialism.
It’s also hypocritical. NATO is willing to allow Ukraine to join, but not Russia:
The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.
Yep. After the USSR was murdered and the State sliced up and sold for spare parts to the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the west, there was a nationalist bourgeoisie that regained control of the Russian Federation's resources and industry, and the West never forgave them for that. That's why Russia is a far-right dystopia in many ways, but unlike far-right dystopias allies to the US Empire, the Russian Federation is depicted in a negative light exclusively in western Media, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Argentina, etc.
What do you believe happened? It's pretty clear that right up until it's dissolution, the majority of the public had no idea it was going to collapse, nor did they want to replace Socialism with Capitalism. The majority of ex-soviets still claim it was better under Socialism than it is under Capitalism.
Not really true. Up to the end, the Soviets were well-fed, there were genuine issues but it was fine. The Economy was slowing down, and the Soviets were still largely planning by hand, which failed to scale well with increasing production, but necessities were more than covered. The system was working, if slowing.
A few SRs had rising nationalist movements towards the end, but up until the very end the vast majority voted to retain membership in the USSR. It wasn't until afterwards that it began to be murdered from the top, from the botched coup, to the change in leadership roles that allowed for conflicts within what was supposed to be a centralized system.
Wealth disparity was far lower in the USSR than in post-soviet countries.
That's a bit unfair. You can actually buy a flying car today. A few companies recently got their vehicle fully certified and are doing commercial sales. It's not cheap. If you can't afford a second Ferrari don't bother.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
https://www.pal-v.com/ is one for example. Certified for road and air. You need a pilot license and a driving license. And it needs a short runway to take off or land. €499,000 excluding tax.
And the modern replacement for the helicopter is the eVTOL. That one is also often called a flying car, although they're not street legal. As far as I know nobody died in an eVTOL yet.
Right but none are what the past thought of. None of these are cars or street legal really in any way.
Also it's cheating to say no one has died in them if nobody is really flying around them. There have been crashes but like a really limited sample size.
This one is street legal and flight certified: https://www.pal-v.com. The others are still doing certification. But yeah, it's not really what people thought the future was going to be. It never is. Retrofuturism exists for a reason.
I rather have a source to support a claim instead of "but it's how I feel so it's real! Scientists don't know anything, stop debunk my feelings with facts because I know I'm right! I read it on Facebook!"
We need more reliable and supported sources and less fake news.
F'real I think my kids have had maybe one snow day so far, and my oldest is in second grade. We live in southeast Mass.
I thought about buying a new snowblower, but the fact is that I think we had maybe one storm in the past 5 or 6 years where I actually would've used my old one. The little dustings we had were easily cared for by a shovel.
I also have a part of my driveway that has a lot of tree overhang and never really gets much snow on it. It also happens that the winter morning sun has a direct path to this patch of asphalt, so if we get only an inch or two, it'll all melt away as soon as the sun comes up. Assuming it's not too overcast.
Covid killed snow days around here, they are now e-learning days. They figure if teachers could handle an entire year of e-learning one day is nothing.
Guess I’m just rankled by seeing so many people making baseless claims and then telling everyone to figure it out themselves when they get called out on it, and it’s not the same as this.
Not everything needs a source. There is such thing as "common knowledge" . Things get very out of hand and very messy if you try to source EVERY claim. Obviously there are limits to this and I put common knowledge in quotes for a reason but seriously I mean it when I say not everything needs a source.
Average YouTube influencer for me.
It's gotten even worse in the past year. Most of them sound like they're parroting AI summaries of blog posts and sprinkling stupid ass cutaway gags to memes. Like rather than actually consuming the entire body of context around a subject and having an informed take, they're just giving shallow thoughts and trying to monetize.
Any YouTuber whose whole angle is to spicy commentary on current events in tech/programming is definitely part of the trash heap.
Problem here is you're watching "influencers."
Spoken like someone who’s never experienced the ancient healing frequencies :p
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
Or you can get a monthly subscription for only $39.9!
That subscription allows you to ask the question to an AI that may or may not hallucinate.
Well, then... At least we will have apparently made enough progress by then to have eliminated the penny from circulation.
59.99 and you can get them ad free!
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it's own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It's page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I've easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is "winning" as soon as it's asked
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Unless it's common knowledge or easily sourced.
no. support your claims
🫡 Really
Edited for formatting
those examples I could accept but I think a lot of people use imparted wisdom as "common knowledge" and we should drill down on any claim that is disputed.
Prove it.
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/academic-skills-kit/study-skills/critical-thinking/using-evidence-to-support-your-argument/
you see that you just did, right? it's tautological.
Yes, my friend, I did see.
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn't matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
black pilled as fuck
Twitter is bad.
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
The hero we deserve.
No source needed, carry on.
Lets not forget that it's about more than just that person. It's about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Aka, "Why Don't You Respond to Criticism?"
It all boils down to bad faith. They don't care what argument you make, you'll never sway them. They're not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you're finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they've already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
Ding ding ding. I actively refuse to do homework from randos on the internet.
I bet they saw the source and said "oh, yes, thank you for the source, I have updated my opinion based on this new information."
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Let it go. Move on to those more receptive.
but those that aren't receptive are literally the problem. american politics has been a 60/40 split with unequal representation for decades. the gears of government are locked in a bitter struggle where not enough is getting done and the problems keep piling up.
Focus on "joy" and hope you are rich enough to feel really good about life until it all blows up?
That seems to be the stance of the younger and the wealthier left, and you can see the nightmare self hatred that is already causing if you aren't.
i can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not but this is godawful moral advice.
"stay comfy and forget about it if you can"
do we or do we not have an obligation to be stewards of the earth? obviously the decision is a personal one. i guess i've decided with my post existential thoughts that we do, and that if you don't agree with me, i don't want you on my team. or the planet for that matter.
Its pretty godawful advice.
But it's advice I do see going around and people taking seriously.
so what is the most logical step if we are to avoid a global catastrophe?
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it's the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don't even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn't fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn't afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We're really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn't even really solve the problem, because we're all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
it's almost like we'd make better pets than masters.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I'm having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
I remember when one conservative parent was absolutely furious with GW Bush over invading Iraq. Then they were all in MAGA for nine years. They've finally disavowed that one, but I don't know how much time they have to come further left, or how the trajectory may shift. We actually had a pleasant few days together, with each of us clenching our teeth and walking away a few times, but that's any relationship. Some things we (everyone) feel strongly about really aren't worth that argument. In fact, a lot of them.
Well that's why the point of arguing with other people isn't really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it's just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
True neckbeards are born with it. It's only the posers that get theirs by injecting PFAS into their balls.
he’s also adversarial ai
and his willy is 8 inches long but he's insecure because his ai girlfriend told him its small
Seriously, though, not fair. Want a way out of this hell.
70s, 80s and 90s were absolute peak humanity and things like these comments are the proof of that.
Republicans have a hard time understanding nonliterals, it's honestly weird and one of the most common denominators between them I've noticed
They seem to be fine with euphemisms and dog whistles.
Maybe willfully ignorant is a better way to put it
The goal should be to have less uninformed people overall by educating the population. But unfortunately the people in charge keep voting against funding education (and basically anything beneficial to society).
That is because it's beneficial to their bottom line.
Every one who wants something other then what i want is uninformed.
To the uninformed, no representation for you. Get over it. Go to therapy to cope with your new forever.
ngl, I don't comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya'll, I've got a job and a life, I can't/don't want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.
Now I kinda understand why "just look away" makes no sense to these kinda people.
This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly "infill" everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that's what they see.
I’m a professional writer for a newspaper. It’s something we inherently think about every time we put pen to paper as it were.
Usually we have a good insight as to our physical paper’s readership. They tend to be older, well-educated, decent reading comprehension, etc. But since our paper is also available online, we also have to factor in the wider readership when the articles get shared. That’s where it gets tricky.
As you’ve pointed out, reading comprehension has sharply declined in general. I love the internet, but there’s no denying it also had some bad consequences with regards to people’s attention spans. The ‘too long, didn’t read mindset.
Because of that, we tend to front-load articles with the needed info and make paragraphs easy to skim. We also tend to write shorter and with less ‘fancy words’. Basically, I need to dumb things down to about 70 percent of my normal writing level. And even with that, you get dumb questions and comments by people who clearly didn’t bother to properly read and understand the first paragraph, much less the rest of the article.
It can certainly be frustrating. People used to read things to learn and get smarter. Now they just want their biases confirmed in as few words as possible.
I'm wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.
I've had people go "I don't have time to read 3 paragraphs!", as though that's some kind of argument against the point I'm trying to make. Attention spans are down.
I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.
For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.
It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.
"If it doesn't apply, let it fly." "Hit dogs holler."
This is my first exposure to this idea and it's quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that's a recipe for disaster.
The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn't help the perception that a question is actually an attack.
I first heard about it due to my buddy (a high school English teacher) complaining about how his incoming students were incredibly far behind in basic reading comprehension skills. We ended up having a pretty long talk about it, and he mentioned that all of his colleagues have noticed the same thing.
I did some digging, and discovered that language teachers everywhere have basically been lamenting the fact that the upcoming generation just straight up doesn’t know how to interpret media when it falls outside of their personal algorithms. I ended up talking with another buddy of mine (a writer for a magazine) and he mentioned that they have started needing to change the way they write, because people have simply lost the ability to comprehend what they read. Skimming the first one or two paragraphs is the new norm, even for in-depth news articles. So they have to load as much content into the early paragraphs as possible.
What, feeling too good for an unproductive Internet fight with strangers who probably would agree with you if they could read?
Source?
Since this is an opinion statement, you're actually quoting the primary source right there!
Yeah here you go!
I've already had people demand "source?" for the most mundane facts. Why yes steroids do enhance physical ability.
source?
Read the comment above yours, that's where I learned about it
this guy showed up with receipts
Source...
Yep. And they do it for things that you KNOW were covered in everyone’s basic education. Stuff everyone should already know without someone needing to explain it.
People used to have the decency to at least feel embarrassment if they needed to have something explained that a child learns in school. But these days people actually get angry if you tell them they’re wrong 🤷♂️
I've felt this exact feeling before. It feels like trying to discuss algebra with someone who didn't learn basic addition. If we can't agree on certain ground rules then discussion is never going to be productive, or will take 3x as long to come to the same conclusion. I feel like it's willful stubbornness as much it is not understanding. People just google points to support their argument instead of being curious and researching the topic.
I do wonder how many of them actually are children.
People are interested in sourcing of information in 2034? I see that as an absolute win.
I agree! Don't run your mouth in public then complain when someone asks you how do you know the thing you're running your mouth about is true. If in 2034 someone who has never seen snow wants more evidence than some idiot on the Internet's feelings on the topic then asking is totally justified.
Winter is on its way out due to climate change. In around the year 2100, it's estimated that there will only be 3 seasons left, no winter. And summer will be much longer and much hotter. So the 3 seasons will be spring, then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That's it.
But you can already see the disappearance of winter today because there's much less snow and it's much warmer than like 30 years ago. (Speaking for Germany)
Winter isn't coming
Brace yourselves. [Winter isn't coming] is coming. That's the winter. The new winter. That's the bad news.
30 years ago we definitely had snow in winter. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But I remember playing in snow basically every winter as a kid. And I’m living in a very mild region of Germany. Now I’m considering all season tires (just for legal purposes) to not change wheels twice a year, since there is maybe some snow for one week in total.
Spoke with a guy this week who was born in the 30s. He said winter back then was much harder. Whole lakes or even rivers were frozen solid. I can’t imagine being able to walk to the other side of a major river…
I remember ice-skating every winter as a kid. Rivers were frozen over solid, too. Sometimes, there were two separate layers of ice on top of each other, each being several cm thick. It kind of went away in the late 90s. I guess everybody just thought the ice and snow would return someday. Now even snow has gotten really, really rare where I live.
I grew up in Ohio in the 1970s (which was admittedly a rough decade as far as cold weather was concerned). Generally, the first snowfall was some time in September and at some point in October the ground would be completely covered in snow and you wouldn't see grass again until April. The snow wasn't completely gone until May. So essentially it was six months of Winter, three months of Summer and a month and a half each for Spring and Fall. It is certainly not anything like that any more.
Like in the tropics, dry season and rain season. Or drought and flooding season of we're unlucky.
I'm absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.
Pretty bold comment for someone with no sources.
amen
birds used to be real
And they had arms
Obviously, that's what the "arms race" refers to. Birds used to have very strong arms which they used while racing in their super-fast arm bikes.
Source? Because that's so not true. Birds are an invention by the government, they are robots to spy on us. The government wants us to believe they always existed. It's all fabricated lies created by the government. Source
I fucking hate newsletter emails but this is the only site I registered for one. I'm launching my ass off every single time. 😂 I love satire haha
I've heard a saying, two things you should never do on the Internet are argue or explain. It takes up a lot of mental energy and time to do it for no reward.
I think in many cases the people who explain things are doing a huge service. They’re silently appreciated by many. The true GOATs of the internet.
I’ve read so many great explanations on Reddit for things in math, science, literature, etc and I feel very grateful to the people who explained them.
Yes. The thing to remember is in many cases you aren't explaining for the person you are debating with or answering a question for. You are doing it for others who may read the conversation.
I've had things brought to light in online discussion change my mind or educate me many times. When I see someone claim these conversations are useless or a waste of time, I just think they are really setting weird criteria for what constitutes a waste of time.
Sure, sometimes I ain't got no time for that, but other times I do, and I figure the same is true for many others as well.
Askhistorians is king.
Source?!
/s
Is that what the s stands for?
Yes.
Oh you don't understand how much reward i get on tiktok for proving my point so much that i get blocked.
It brings me unfathomable joy
Also trolls and propagandists employ bad faith tactics specifically to make their opposition do the bulk of the world, which they either ignore after or they just laugh at for some bullshit reason they claim is a gotcha.
There is an Islamophobic author who has been employing shit like in his books since the 90s. It isn't new at all.
I asked my employer provided AI assistant if this is true and it assured me that natural snowfall was disinformation invented by leftists in order to destroy our capitalist utopia.
"The sky is blue"
"No stupid that's woke liberal propaganda Trump 2024"
What, you're saying that the sky is owned by democrats now? Give sources, cause my sky is Republican Red! /S
(Infuriating TikTok voice:) "These red states are putting atmospheric additives in their coal plants to turn the sky red! Wow!"
No, that's the current trend here (Switzerland plains).
Same here in Slovenia. 15 years ago we had at least 30cm of snow each winter that would stick around. Now if we even get any snowfall and not just rain it either rains the same day and the snow is gone, or the rain comes a day later and the snow is once again gone.
Also the local lake used to freeze every year. It has froten once in the last 15 years.
There must be a way to have winter back. We have to do it for future generations at any cost. I refuse to live in a tropical hell just because some CEOs couldn't fuck off.
Our essential weapon must become the guillotine. No other way.
I fully agree. Fuck the current economic system, whoever opposes revolution should be crushed.
I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.
My source is that I made it the fuck up
Sealion infestations are problematic. Be sure to call your local exterminator promptly whenever you encounter one.
Where's your source for this? I've never noticed it so it must not be happening
Guilty. Show me the almanac. I don’t trust nobody on the internet. Everybody speaks like they’re an expert.
I'm an expert on internets and this guy is wrong.
Source?
Ask the dragon
Can confirm: am expert at experting.
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.
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.
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.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
Such as? Need a book to read next.
Depends, how familiar are you with Marxism?
The very broad strokes (not red-scared).
You've got a bit of a choose your own adventure!
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
If you want some quick reads, I love Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Modern analysis, 20 minute reads, based on what we currently know and not written back in the period of Marx.
Finally, if you consider yourself a Marxist already, The State and Revolution as well as Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism are both Lenin's most significant works.
Really though, the modern works and Blackshirts and Reds are great primers before delving into Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves.
Woah! Thanks for the tips!
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you've read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren't Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
A cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.
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
And the sources they claim to have heavily researched often never say what they claim they say or are utterly full of shit.
"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"
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.
I'm rather certain that a good chunk has no clue about any algorithms and just beliefs that their point of view reflects reality
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?
EDIT: My source for this opinion is here
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)
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that's without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
I never said Russia didn't invade Ukraine, my point is specifically that calling NATO a "defensive alliance" despite it's sole purpose being maintenance of Western Imperialism is laughable. People who understand ACAB but defend NATO as "purely defensive" have an inability to understand imperialism.
My comment has been deleted for no reason. Enjoy.
Probably your ableist username.
It’s also hypocritical. NATO is willing to allow Ukraine to join, but not Russia:
Its behind a paywall can you copy paste?
A Geostrategy for Eurasia
Yep. After the USSR was murdered and the State sliced up and sold for spare parts to the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the west, there was a nationalist bourgeoisie that regained control of the Russian Federation's resources and industry, and the West never forgave them for that. That's why Russia is a far-right dystopia in many ways, but unlike far-right dystopias allies to the US Empire, the Russian Federation is depicted in a negative light exclusively in western Media, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Argentina, etc.
What do you believe happened? It's pretty clear that right up until it's dissolution, the majority of the public had no idea it was going to collapse, nor did they want to replace Socialism with Capitalism. The majority of ex-soviets still claim it was better under Socialism than it is under Capitalism.
What the actual hell
Which part?
Not really true. Up to the end, the Soviets were well-fed, there were genuine issues but it was fine. The Economy was slowing down, and the Soviets were still largely planning by hand, which failed to scale well with increasing production, but necessities were more than covered. The system was working, if slowing.
A few SRs had rising nationalist movements towards the end, but up until the very end the vast majority voted to retain membership in the USSR. It wasn't until afterwards that it began to be murdered from the top, from the botched coup, to the change in leadership roles that allowed for conflicts within what was supposed to be a centralized system.
Wealth disparity was far lower in the USSR than in post-soviet countries.
On top of this, the majority wished to retain Socialism and want to go back. I don't "fling it around lightly," this is a well-documented phenomenon, Capitalism is worse than Socialism for post-soviet countries. The USSR also wasn't an Empire, nor was it warmongering, it materially supported anticolonial and anti-imperialist movements the world over.
@sharkfucker420 We would have flying cars and spaceships in future
The future:
That's a bit unfair. You can actually buy a flying car today. A few companies recently got their vehicle fully certified and are doing commercial sales. It's not cheap. If you can't afford a second Ferrari don't bother.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
@SlopppyEngineer Ok so define flying car? How is a flying car possible lol. Shape of car will be aerodynamic maybe
https://www.pal-v.com/ is one for example. Certified for road and air. You need a pilot license and a driving license. And it needs a short runway to take off or land. €499,000 excluding tax.
Holy gucamoly! How does the engineering work?? I never seen something like this bruh 🤯
Edit: Damn, seems like something like this was tried before too but did not last for long it seems
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car
Yeah, turns out it's easier and cheaper to charter a jet and rent a car at the destination.
Yeah it's called a helicopter.
Most of the extremely wealthy use then to avoid traffic and occasionally die in them cause flying is more complicated than SciFi made it seem.
Look at the mansions and companies that all include landing pads. They aren't just for die hard movies.
And the modern replacement for the helicopter is the eVTOL. That one is also often called a flying car, although they're not street legal. As far as I know nobody died in an eVTOL yet.
Right but none are what the past thought of. None of these are cars or street legal really in any way.
Also it's cheating to say no one has died in them if nobody is really flying around them. There have been crashes but like a really limited sample size.
This one is street legal and flight certified: https://www.pal-v.com. The others are still doing certification. But yeah, it's not really what people thought the future was going to be. It never is. Retrofuturism exists for a reason.
It's gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.
Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.
I rather have a source to support a claim instead of "but it's how I feel so it's real! Scientists don't know anything, stop debunk my feelings with facts because I know I'm right! I read it on Facebook!"
We need more reliable and supported sources and less fake news.
You get people who believe jet contrails only started appearing in the 90s even though that they didn’t is literally within living memory.
Isn’t 2034 when we start 1970 again? Except without water.
Ah a brand new cycle in the Matrix simulation. I hope in the next one, we catch Jeffrey Dahmer. and the James Cameron Avatar films doesn't suck.
I fucking wish.
terrifying
Don't worry. It won't happen like this. There will be no one left.
SOURc......
F'real I think my kids have had maybe one snow day so far, and my oldest is in second grade. We live in southeast Mass.
I thought about buying a new snowblower, but the fact is that I think we had maybe one storm in the past 5 or 6 years where I actually would've used my old one. The little dustings we had were easily cared for by a shovel.
I also have a part of my driveway that has a lot of tree overhang and never really gets much snow on it. It also happens that the winter morning sun has a direct path to this patch of asphalt, so if we get only an inch or two, it'll all melt away as soon as the sun comes up. Assuming it's not too overcast.
Covid killed snow days around here, they are now e-learning days. They figure if teachers could handle an entire year of e-learning one day is nothing.
True 💀
Hidden panel: guy on left saying “google it yourself, don’t expect me to have to teach you anything”
Why should anyone ever have to substantiate their claims???
I would just assume that anyone who needed a cite for really obvious stuff is just trolling.
Yeah, I suppose the obvious stuff, sure
Guess I’m just rankled by seeing so many people making baseless claims and then telling everyone to figure it out themselves when they get called out on it, and it’s not the same as this.
Hashtag Rule'34
I would like to see the source for this meme.
Just give me back the fucking 80s and 90s.
Fuck that. That got us here by not fixing any problems and just hiding issues in the beginning of social identity politics.
Still better than today.
People who make memes mocking the expectation of a source are the ones responsible for the downfall of society
Not everything needs a source. There is such thing as "common knowledge" . Things get very out of hand and very messy if you try to source EVERY claim. Obviously there are limits to this and I put common knowledge in quotes for a reason but seriously I mean it when I say not everything needs a source.
Boo hoo.
Source?
"Do you have a source?" means, "I already know you are wrong but you won't believe me unless you find out for yourself."
Do you have a source for that claim?