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??
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??
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 days 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.
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 2 days ago
Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 days 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.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
No, you’re the one coping out by both refusing to engage in good faith AND refusing to do the work of fact checking if you want to be so pedantic and skeptical. You want to have it both ways. And in the end the result is always you ignoring information and arguments you don’t like. If you’re not invested enough in your objection to skim through 15 minutes of transcript you shouldn’t be invested enough to keep flapping your mouth in ignorance of it.