Post that only criticize the source

[Fishking]

...should have a rule against that. If someone comes into a thread, and only criticizes the source posted, that should be stopped. I don't care if they actually address the OP and then also criticize the source. Combative posts are fine so long as the actual point is still being addressed. It's literally one of the most brain-dead and time-wasting posts to exist.

The point of a "debate" is to engage in the debate at hand. That's not it, and the most annoying aspect of these mindless posts is that you can take 5 seconds to find the same exact story from multiple sources. Or, and this is my favorite, they will call the source into question when it's based on a quote from a video that anyone can watch and see the person say that exact thing (happened in some Joe Rogan video recently).

 

[MamboDervish]

...should have a rule against that. If someone comes into a thread, and only criticizes the source posted, that should be stopped. I don't care if they actually address the OP and then also criticize the source. Combative posts are fine so long as the actual point is still being addressed. It's literally one of the most brain-dead and time-wasting posts to exist.

The point of a "debate" is to engage in the debate at hand. That's not it, and the most annoying aspect of these mindless posts is that you can take 5 seconds to find the same exact story from multiple sources. Or, and this is my favorite, they will call the source into question when it's based on a quote from a video that anyone can watch and see the person say that exact thing (happened in some Joe Rogan video recently).

I don't agree. If the "same exact story from multiple sources" can be found in 5 seconds, then spare us all the overt propagandizing and post more credible sources. Easy peasy. Otherwise, expect to get hammered for quoting places like OAN. Nobody should waste their time "debating" bullshit lies. If you don't like posts that just question the source, then scroll by them. They're short enough.

 

[Overitall]

...should have a rule against that. If someone comes into a thread, and only criticizes the source posted, that should be stopped. I don't care if they actually address the OP and then also criticize the source. Combative posts are fine so long as the actual point is still being addressed. It's literally one of the most brain-dead and time-wasting posts to exist.

The point of a "debate" is to engage in the debate at hand. That's not it, and the most annoying aspect of these mindless posts is that you can take 5 seconds to find the same exact story from multiple sources. Or, and this is my favorite, they will call the source into question when it's based on a quote from a video that anyone can watch and see the person say that exact thing (happened in some Joe Rogan video recently).

I get it. It's called "Poisoning the well." Discredit the messenger is not the same as discrediting the message but for far too many it's enough. Still, I find it very easy to scroll on past those posts.

 

[Rexedgar]

I’ll second the motion, there are two main culprits.

The other waste of space is oversized third party smileys!


A recent example:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are notconsidered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History​

The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles. The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013. The current editors are David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway
On March 26th, 2020, Twitter locked the site’s account for violating its rules against spreading misinformation about the coronavirus.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership​

According to the website, The Federalist is a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media. The website is funded through online advertising as well as paid subscriptionsto newsletters.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't agree. If the "same exact story from multiple sources" can be found in 5 seconds, then spare us all the overt propagandizing and post more credible sources. Easy peasy. Otherwise, expect to get hammered for quoting places like OAN. Nobody should waste their time "debating" bullshit lies. If you don't like posts that just question the source, then scroll by them. They're short enough.

Ultimately, I agree with this. Some sources are known to be basically propaganda and it is good that this is exposed.

 

[Fishking]

I don't agree. If the "same exact story from multiple sources" can be found in 5 seconds, then spare us all the overt propagandizing and post more credible sources. Easy peasy. Otherwise, expect to get hammered for quoting places like OAN. Nobody should waste their time "debating" bullshit lies. If you don't like posts that just question the source, then scroll by them. They're short enough.

I don't care if you agree. If that's the only thing that's posted it's ****ing dumb and lazy. There is no second option.

 

[Fishking]

I’ll second the motion, there are two main culprits.

The other waste of space is oversized third party smileys!


A recent example:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are notconsidered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History​

The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles. The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013. The current editors are David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway
On March 26th, 2020, Twitter locked the site’s account for violating its rules against spreading misinformation about the coronavirus.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership​

According to the website, The Federalist is a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media. The website is funded through online advertising as well as paid subscriptionsto newsletters.

^----perfect example. A post that takes up all that space to literally contribute nothing to the point.

 

[MamboDervish]

I don't care if you agree. If that's the only thing that's posted it's ****ing dumb and lazy. There is no second option.

Yeah - your position on the matter was expressed in the OP. Anything more on the subject out of you is just a memo issued from the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[Fishking]

Yeah - your position on the matter was expressed in the OP. Anything more on the subject out of you is just a memo issued from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Some people need to hear things more than once.

 

[Loulit01]

The first thing I do is check the source.

 

[MamboDervish]

Some people need to hear things more than once.

Point taken.

 

[Fishking]

The first thing I do is check the source.

I have no issue with checking the source. It's coming into a thread, saying nothing else more than a derivation of "your source sucks" and nothing else. Like, I could say that about pretty much any source but what the **** does that accomplish outside of weak virtue signaling?

It's most definitely not debate. A real debate would be "Your source sucks. Here is my source that is better saying something else." <---that is debate.

 

[mike2810]

My opinion is there is times when a source should be refuted/attacked.
Example: The destruction of the WTC on 9/11 had various group come out with different theories on what caused the collapse. When the only source is from the likes of Infowars, the source should be questioned. Some people will accept Infowars as creditable source while rejecting scientific journals. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

What frustrates me more is when asked for a source/link the poster will not provide one. They generally say research yourself or you do not need the source because you will just ignore it.

 

[Redress]

...should have a rule against that. If someone comes into a thread, and only criticizes the source posted, that should be stopped. I don't care if they actually address the OP and then also criticize the source. Combative posts are fine so long as the actual point is still being addressed. It's literally one of the most brain-dead and time-wasting posts to exist.

The point of a "debate" is to engage in the debate at hand. That's not it, and the most annoying aspect of these mindless posts is that you can take 5 seconds to find the same exact story from multiple sources. Or, and this is my favorite, they will call the source into question when it's based on a quote from a video that anyone can watch and see the person say that exact thing (happened in some Joe Rogan video recently).

If you are using a source to bolster your argument, questioning the source's credibility is a perfectly valid debate tactic.

 

[Lutherf]

I have no issue with checking the source. It's coming into a thread, saying nothing else more than a derivation of "your source sucks" and nothing else. Like, I could say that about pretty much any source but what the **** does that accomplish outside of weak virtue signaling?

It's most definitely not debate. A real debate would be "Your source sucks. Here is my source that is better saying something else." <---that is debate.

While I understand your frustration, and share it, I'm also a free speech guy and firmly believe that if people are wont to put their lack of intellectual curiosity on display for everyone then let them have at it. For some people the idea of having a large post count without having to put any actual though into what they are posting is a "success". Heck, some may never find "success" without such a low standard! Now, that being said, if staff chose to afford those worst offenders a digital "participation trophy" I would be wholly unopposed to that.

 

[Utility Man]

Republicans would now like everyone to stop using the term "fake news" ?

 

[Fishking]

If you are using a source to bolster your argument, questioning the source's credibility is a perfectly valid debate tactic.

I specifically said the source can be questioned but if you avoid the OP in total, then you did nothing but waste energy posting it and therefore hate the earth. It's not hard to both question the source and also address the OP.

And, again, the vast majority of the time you can find the same thing from other sources or there is a video/screen shot/ect. of the person saying the quote in the link, so it doesn't matter what the source is. It can be ignored entirely and the quote can be addressed.

 

[Fishking]

Republicans would now like everyone to stop using the term "fake news" ?

Ah....you're saying that those who do this are on the same level as Trump. I concur.

 

[Fishking]

While I understand your frustration, and share it, I'm also a free speech guy and firmly believe that if people are wont to put their lack of intellectual curiosity on display for everyone then let them have at it. For some people the idea of having a large post count without having to put any actual though into what they are posting is a "success". Heck, some may never find "success" without such a low standard! Now, that being said, if staff chose to afford those worst offenders a digital "participation trophy" I would be wholly unopposed to that.

It's not really a free speech issue. This is a debate forum. That's not debate. It would be more akin to you going to a forum that's for car enthusiasts, going into a post about how to change an alternator on a particular Mustang, and you coming and and saying, "Mustangs ****ing suck!" and nothing else.

That's not a free speech issue.

 

[Lutherf]

It's not really a free speech issue. This is a debate forum. That's not debate. It would be more akin to you going to a forum that's for car enthusiasts, going into a post about how to change an alternator on a particular Mustang, and you coming and and saying, "Mustangs ****ing suck!" and nothing else.

That's not a free speech issue.

Like I said, some people simply aren't capable of anything more than that and, rather than get pissed off about those posts, I choose to merely scroll past them.

 

[Fishking]

Like I said, some people simply aren't capable of anything more than that and, rather than get pissed off about those posts, I choose to merely scroll past them.

Or they could be stamped out. There are many rules on posting. This one would be much more reasonable than others.

 

[Schweddy]

...should have a rule against that. If someone comes into a thread, and only criticizes the source posted, that should be stopped. I don't care if they actually address the OP and then also criticize the source. Combative posts are fine so long as the actual point is still being addressed. It's literally one of the most brain-dead and time-wasting posts to exist.

The point of a "debate" is to engage in the debate at hand. That's not it, and the most annoying aspect of these mindless posts is that you can take 5 seconds to find the same exact story from multiple sources. Or, and this is my favorite, they will call the source into question when it's based on a quote from a video that anyone can watch and see the person say that exact thing (happened in some Joe Rogan video recently).

How would you moderate this in an unbiased fashion?

 

[Fishking]

How would you moderate this in an unbiased fashion?

They just have to address the OP. Either they read the actual content and criticize a point, or they post a link from their own source contradicting it. An actual exchange of counterpoint has to occur. If all they do is...and I quote from one today, "lol...The Federalist" that wouldn't be allowed. What has that comment added? There is also someone who often posts like the example that Rexedgar gave where they spam a giant quarter page "Media Bias" response as their contribution.

People can crap on the source all they want, so long as the actual OP is addressed. I'm not anywhere close to be innocent of being combative, but I do also address the points.

 

[Lutherf]

How would you moderate this in an unbiased fashion?

I think what Fish is getting at is the myriad posts that show up after a user posts a link that goes to Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or some other similar site. The OP may well be posting legitimate news and the page they link to often has a link to direct source material such as a YouTube video or some more "main stream" article. For example, if I were to start a thread with a title of "Matt Dowd says Biden should be congratulated" and link to Newsbusters then it's quite common to get a number of replies linking to political bias rankings sites that say Newsbusters is right wing. That isn't really debating the topic as much as it is an attempt to derail the thread. In the example I gave the video clip from CNN is provided so anyone that wants to debate the context or content of Dowd's comment can do so but, rather than do that, they just trash the chosen link rather than the ultimate source.

 

[CaughtInThe]

if Donald Trump says something that is the usual Donald Trump crazy and someone responds...


"it's Donald Trump"



is that not fair?