Bro you just expect me to look at a primary source after copying and pasting a wikipedia article? how do you think internet arguments work??
>Doesn’t actually address any of the points mentioned
>Drops in a 26 minute video
>“Just watch this bro”
Fucking bravo.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You know Wikipedia has their sources in these things [1] and it links to the actual source. Wikipedia in itself isn’t the source. And the source for all of them (including the other guy’s news article) was the exact same interview.
how do you think internet arguments work??
Definitely not good form to not make any points, but just drop a link to a 26 min video. It’s the same as saying source: a whole book. You make the argument and cite the parts you’re using for your argument. It’s sorta internet arguments 101.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
It’s the same as saying source: a whole book.
Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You wouldn’t just say “souce: book” in a thesis or studies, where people are actually reading pages and pages of stuff. You cite the actual part you are referencing. Idk why you’d think it’s good form to do that in an online arguments. It just seems like a copout, hoping that the other person doesn’t actually check tbh.
splinter@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The other commenter is completely correct here. If you don’t point to the exact material on which you’re basing your argument, you haven’t cited the material.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, I understand it’s frustrating when we deviate from the NATO script. Can this bot not digest videos? He’s written a number of articles about it, too. Here’s one:
jeffsachs.org/…/s6ap8hxhp34hg252wtwwwtdw4afw7x?fo…
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Article is better, but even better would be if you quoted a part that’s actually relevant to whatever point you’re trying to make. And perhaps even stated what point you’re trying to make.
If this is still about Ukrainians being “western handlers ordered them to keep fighting”, your linked article doesn’t give you much help:
So much so for Western handlers ordering them to keep fighting. Wah-wah.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Take your pick. You very broadly denied western involvement, and this delves into the details.
That quote actually makes my point. Not yours.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Do share where I “broadly denied western involvement”.
For reference, your point:
It does not at all prove your point. It’s just again based on the interview where the person doesn’t actually say any of that and he actually said there were many reasons for the talks having failed, namely lacking security guarantees. Wah-wah.
Lumbardo@reddthat.com 1 month ago
Why are you just throwing links? You should at least make an attempt to quote your sources so you don’t leave people here reading erroneous information. @Kusimulkku at least gave you the courtesy of doing that.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If I summarize the info, I’m accused of making it up. If I provide sources, I get complaints about no one wanting to read links.
Bots will move the goalposts no matter what they get.