"Trust the Science"

submitted by zyxzevn from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You should make a separate post concerning this, so that the people who you are "getting examples from" can describe to you why they do what they do. I have a strong feeling that you go to a liberal school and have very mainstream beliefs. You'd probably group users into the "crazy conspiritard" group without a second thought. You should make this post, because it's respectful. You should do it because you'd probably get more" examples" which is what you want, and you'd also be subjected to users who are not fools, who CAN source their claims, who have more experience than you do in regards to the modern power process. You seem to be similar to the Trumpists. They say no words from the mainstream can be trusted. You seem to say no words from the alternative can be trusted.

If you aren't saying this, then please, make a separate post and treat all the users here like they might actually have something to teach you. Some of them surely do. Thank you.

[–]Kyto113 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I do regularly engage and challenge people for their sources. You want me to make a general post "show me the evidence for your conspiracy theories"? It is much more productive to simply ask people actually making the claims for the evidence (or to challenge bad evidence when I see it).

It's not that no information from alt sources can be trusted, but the reliability of these sources is really fucking low. That's not to say they never contain truth or good reasoning, but the whole reason they're "alt" news sources is that they generally operate on a different evidentiary ethos than "mainstream" sources.

And again, I'm trying to draw out glaring hypocrisy in the general mode of discourse on this sub. Everyone claims to read the science, but when they offer evidence for their beliefs, it comes from bitchute, thedailyfodder, dailyhandle etc. (taking examples from s/politics right now). How is that better than trusting mainstream media?

Finally, you're painting what I'm saying unfairly. Obviously I can't say that nobody here has evidence for their beliefs or that everyone is exhibiting fallacies. What I am saying, though, is that the general quality of evidence favored on this site is a step lower than even MSM (which is itself very low).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

See, I continued to talk to you because you are now being far more careful with your words, and you are actually portraying your side in an accurate way, unlike earlier, where you were definitely acting foolishly and making it seem as if you were just mining this site to score intellectual points in your class. Make a post, treat us like people, and you might actually understand how some of us know what we know. Like, you would probably argue with me concerning the bankers and their evil grip on society, BUT I have already experienced it firsthand. No reputable or accepted source could change what I have seen and experienced. Where would we stand, then? To some, I am just a person on the internet, so therefore, not worth listening to. To others, I am what I am: a young man who has been burned and will try to help others avoid that same burning. Sometimes I can use sources to do that. Usually, I have to tell people to get more experience, which they won't do if they just think I am blowing hot air up their ass. You seem to come here with a closed mind. What is the purpose of that?

I never said alt. sources are better. All sources have their worth only when their biases and agendas are understood. Most people do not understand the biases within "reputable sources" which is why many people here are upset with you. Some of them ARE fools, and they are forum sliders. Yes, they are on every forum. Still. Make a separate post concerning this. Be upright. I dare you to, I am actually daring you to. I would do this if I were in class with you. Do it, and you might actually learn something, rather than think ALL conspiracies come from shitty sites.

Some of us watched these conspiracies tear apart our families. You can't deny that, no matter how badly you might want to. You have a person right in front of you (separated only by a screen) saying that he has been burned by people the "reputable" sources claim are amazing upright people, when they aren't. Most of the "reputable" sources are owned or indebted to the same people who burned me and my family. It literally only happened because we weren't of their specific tribe. Only because we can't help but fight against tyranny. We've done it now for many hundreds of years, and no amount of "reputable" sources would get us to stop. You should try to understand why people who have been pushed around for hundreds of years finally decide to stop getting pushed around. You'll find that we are acting from facts and truth, oftentimes facts and truths that cannot be experienced unless you actually accept that it is real and happening. That is how they play this game. If you have a closed mind, you won't see them. If you willingly accept that there is more going on that what your "reputable" sources could tell, then you will actually come to understand a little of truth.

I should say, I despise Trumpists like u/christianmusicreleases. Shills and establishment supporters (like yourself) can point to users like him and say "SEE, aren't these saiditors just so retarded?"

Make that post and be upright. Thank you.

[–]Kyto113 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That you took my point unfairly is not a fault of mine. I'm having to be more careful to correct your numerous unfounded assumptions. Nor am I claiming that all saiditors are irrational. I'm mearly reporting an observation of the general level of discourse- one that makes this meme rather ironic.

What exactly should be the topic of my post? Just opening it up to conspiracy theorists to tell me the evidence for their conspiracy theories is going to be unmanageable, and you know that.

making it seem as if you were just mining this site to score intellectual points in your class.

Score intellectual points in my class? I teach critical thinking. I'm looking for examples of fallacies and biases in the wild. They tend to be more common in conspiracy circles and alt news circles. Hence why I come here and places like r/conspiracy

But I also give people a chance to defend themselves. If you look at my post history you can see that I regularly call out misinformation and poor argumentation and give people a chance to correct themselves. Sometimes they do. Very often they don't.

You have made a lot of assumptions about my political ideology, my support for the mainstream, etc. Most of them are incorrect. Holding people to rational standards, The same to which I hold people on r/politics, is not being closed-minded..

Absolutely there is a lot wrong with our society. And yes I totally agree that banking and capital is a major problem in our society. You can appeal to vague personal experience all you want, my only point was about the double standard in sourcing that happens on this site as a general fact. Hopefully you can admit that even if you think you have good evidence for your beliefs.

We may come to discuss that evidence directly in a thread about that specific topic. This is a meme calling out people for accepting mainstream news, my only point has been that the general level of discourse on this site is no better.

Edit- just to boil down this whole discussion to a simple question. I don't see a lot of science being used as evidence of the more controversial claims on this site. Do you?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, score intellectual points in your class. Just because you are a teacher doesn't mean you can't do this. C'mon. "I'm looking for fallacies and biases in the wild. They tend to be more common in conspiracy circles and alt news circles." Dude, they are just as common amongst your circles, you simply justify it with logic.

If you look at my language, I never make any claims. I use words like "assume, seem, might, maybe, probably, as though" and so on. I rarely speak absolutely on something unless I know for certain I am right.

To answer your question, I don't see a lot of science being used anywhere these days, be it on a controversial site, or on a "reputable" one.

Make the post. Be transparent. Be upright.

Edit: you would be unbearable as a teacher. "You can appeal to vague personal experience all you want..." Why don't you make a separate post and actually seek to understand why people see things the way they do? Try it.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't see a lot of science being used as evidence of the more controversial claims on this site. Do you?

Why don't you go to s/debatealtright and start arguing about jews or race or intelligence? If you want science to back up the so-called "controversial" claims made on this site, I urge you to post there. I will personally tear you apart about race with supporting scientific literature.