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.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 days ago
I would’ve been happy to engage if they stated what point they were trying to make and how and what part of the video they are citing. I’m still happy to do that. If you’re expecting others to just figure that out by themselves from a 26 minute video, you are going to have a bad time. If it’s not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it’s fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
When you are making an argument, you are trying to convince the other person. If you don’t clearly make your case and rely on them to figure out your argument and what supports it, it’s just not going to work well. At that point it feels like the person is trying to convince themselves and not the other person.
I understand you’re upset about me not doing the work for them, but there’s no need not to be civil about this. This seems to just be a case of us having a very different expectation on what people should do in arguments or how they should argue.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Impossible to take you seriously when you don’t have a moment’s dissonance saying shit like this. “If it’s not correct in context A it shouldn’t be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like”
You aren’t even attempting the mental gymnastics. You’re just saying 2+2 = 5 without added effort.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 days ago
I mean, the point was that if it is not okay to cite just a full book in a context where the communication is a lot slower, text is a lot longer, there’s an expectation of reading a lot more and so on, then why would it be okay in an online argument where the communication is a lot quicker, texts a lot shorter and you aren’t expected to read at all as much.
To put it in simpler terms: If you shouldn’t assume that someone is going to read a whole book for a citation in your thesis, why would you expect that from someone reading a random internet argument?
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
You don’t need to clarify anything; you’re just being wrongheaded. First, just because YOU’RE a freak hitting F5 until your finger breaks doesn’t mean asynchronous text is a ‘faster’ medium. No one’s forcing you to talk out of your ass. No one’s forcing you to respond as fast as you can. You have permission to stop replying if the person you’re arguing with is better read than you and you want to incorporate their knowledge base into your own. And if you don’t you’re saying that your ignorance is as valuable as their knowledge.
Why would you expect someone to read something just because someone said “I got this information from here”? My child, no one expects you to do that. They expect you to take their word for it. And if you are so hostile as to be motivated to accuse them of lying, you take on the exercise of exposing them.
I’m astounded by how doggedly you’re asserting your lazy entitlement.