cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21782844
Tru
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
491 points (97.9% liked)
Political Memes
5441 readers
3574 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Primary sources are a thing my friend. "I was there" is valid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
But you could just say that. I doubt it's hard to find a source to back up how much it snowed.
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.