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.

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.

[+] tyler@programming.dev -6 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So like

If someone claims there's totally a genocide

Then provides shit sources...

🤔

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

🤔 I wonder who would do that?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)