this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
40 points (88.5% liked)
Memes
53486 readers
562 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
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
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.