• Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.

    Questioning a source isn’t going “well I just don’t trust it”. It’s pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying “well I’ve been told they’re untrustworthy.” You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc.

    My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?

    I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is going in circles.

      If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?

      I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.

      I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.

      This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
      I’ve already gone thru why “well this is a famous brand” is not a good foundation for “what makes a source good for a given claim”, but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.

      This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you’ve been.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim.

        There are a few you’ve yet to say anything about. The rest of them you’ve basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it’s in (or in Wikipedia’s case the supposed Godwin’s-law-violating bias) but then when it’s asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.

        Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it…

        Haven’t I?

        …based on a factual basis.

        Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You’d be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.

        I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.