this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
39 points (88.2% liked)
Memes
53473 readers
817 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Disclaimer: not .ml.
Critisizing someone's sources and then refusing to provide any other ones "because it's pointless" seems a little hypocritical to me.
So we should trust your word over someone's who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don't need to prove anything, but if you're gonna argue or act like you're defending people from misinformation, then I'd expect to see more than just "don't listen to that guy". It's not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I'd very much appreciate any links that don't lead to obvious manipulation.
How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
There's no such thing as a source with no bias
But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?
Mate, the person literally said "Either the sources are biased or not"
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it's what the other person was saying.
Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don't have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be "is the criticism valid?" And not "do you have a better point?"
And the answer to that question is "there’s no such thing as a source with no bias"
No it is not. That's only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as "outrages strawman". Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement "there's no such thing as a source with no bias" is a moot point.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it's not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person's words? In this case, you're essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with 'stopping lies' is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I'm by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that's the case, since I still have no idea). However, it's all in vain if they don't bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
I mean it is obvious after reading, the problem is that most people aren’t going to read the sources, they’re just reading the comment. They’re not going to click through and see that several are literally Chinese propaganda sites. They’re going to take the original comment at face value. If they then skip the sources and read my comment stating what the sources actually are then they’re less likely to be influenced.
So like
If someone claims there's totally a genocide
Then provides shit sources...
🤔
🤔 I wonder who would do that?