• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The meme doesn’t really reflect reality, it’s just a weirdly remixed right-wing meme. Climate change denialists don’t ask for sources as they dislike them in general (Youtube videos and huffing your own farts is quite enough for them), they will just say the MSM has implanted the snow propaganda into your brain.

  • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    I dont think asking for sources is ever a bad thing. Even for basic information. We should not defer to ‘trust me bro’ or ‘everyone already knows’

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        My brother frequently demands a source when I tell an anecdote, then misuses Hitchen’s Razor to accuse me of making the anecdote up. This would be understandable if it was as a pics or it didn’t happen response to something outlandish, but it’s usually for something entirely mundane that was barely interesting enough to mention in the first place.

      • De_Narm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s just too easy to lie about them. They allegedly had primary sources for “They are eating the dogs”.

        Trusting your common sense to filter these just doesn’t work, asking for a better source is never wrong.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          The key phrase for primary sources is “trust, but verify”. That means listening to the primary source, and then do the legwork yourself to verify. Verify doesn’t mean asking the primary source for a source, it means figuring it out for yourself. A claim like “they’re eating the pets” gets readily debunked as soon as you start looking for evidence.

          • De_Narm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            That approach may work for journalism and such, with a single person collecting primary sources and verifying them before writing an article. However, it does not work on the internet.

            Instead of one person verifying the claim and adding further sources in an article, every single reader would have to do it. And anyone using the internet would have to do so hundreds of times every day. Nobody does that. It only makes sense to shift the burden of further proof onto the primary source or disregard it.

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              You’re allowed to post what you find. The most effective method for cutting through the mis-/dis-info is to both respond directly with evidence, and then talk past it as a cool thing you just learned in a new post

        • socsa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ok but like a lot of people saw the snow compared to the dog thing which ended up not actually having any good primary source

      • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It is if I can trust you. The reality is i can’t. So if you have claims and its important for you to ensure i understand or accept your input then you better be able to back it up or I won’t.

        If you were ‘there’ then prove that.

        There are a lot of scenarios where it is just not important to have acceptance or agreement from the other party so it’s not like this is a universal rule. But if you have to rely on ‘trust me’ then you have to accept that some people simply wont.

      • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah thats fair. Thats when Id decide that their acceptance is no longer important and no amount of evidence will matter anyways.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thing is anyone posting stuff like this DGAF about any sources.

      I get where you’re coming from, but unless you’re saying “Source?” just to troll them back there isn’t any real expectation of a good faith response.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          No.

          If you make a statement of fact then you need to be able to back it up with objective facts.

          If you can’t, then it’s called opinion

          And a second asbsolutelyfuckingnot. Why?

          Because there is a torrent of utter bullshit posted online every day. The burden to prove it’s bullshit should not be placed on the recipient of the information. Why, again? Because it’s easy to flood everything with bullshit and takes effort to disprove. You cannot allow people to make statements without facing the burden of proving their position, otherwise nobody is going to be checking anything and the bullshitters win.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You get downvoted but asking for w written source over anecdotal testimony is often good practice. I don’t think so in this particular case.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Look there are some wild claims that deserve a request for sources.

      Outside of that I would think you can check it out on your own if you don’t already know. How is it that this “do your research” crowd doesn’t know how to do their own research?

      • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The scenario here is Person A makes claim. Person B wants a source.

        If you want Person B to accept your claim you have to back it up. If you dont care then the point is moot. Its that easy.

        How is it that this “do your research” crowd

        Dont lump me into random crowds. Im just saying that this meme is for some reason promoting the ‘trust me bro’ stance and I dont like that.

      • YoFrodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        yeah the meme sets up a ridiculous scenario but does promote the ‘trust me bro’ stance.

    • infinite_ass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      For better and worse, we get 99% of our reality from each other and trust is assumed. That’s just how society works and it ain’t gonna change.

      Yes, it’s far from sane. Yes, social media has turned it up to 11.

      Don’t like it? Want “truth”? I dunno.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s painful that this is downvoted. If you can’t cite facts, you’re as dumb as Trump supporters, you just happen to be on the other side…