Your response to being asked to cite your sources is to double down on not providing any whatsoever, and then following up with an ad hominem?
Yeah, this ain’t worth my time. The point of providing sources isn’t just to prevent the spread of disinformation, but to correct misinformation. If your specific source later turned out to be incorrect or misinterpreted, anybody could point that out and help everybody be better informed. That is especially important when making an assertion on something that already has active disinformation campaigns surrounding it.
If you want to contribute positively to public discourse, you need a better strategy for fulfilling your burden of proof than the modern equivalent of “well, how about you prove God doesn’t exist”.
If someone is unaware of a scandal that has been all over the news for years, and then subsequent scandals, indictments, convictions, and very plausible evidence of more fraud, then it’s a sea lion.
Your response to being asked to cite your sources is to double down on not providing any whatsoever, and then following up with an ad hominem?
Yeah, this ain’t worth my time. The point of providing sources isn’t just to prevent the spread of disinformation, but to correct misinformation. If your specific source later turned out to be incorrect or misinterpreted, anybody could point that out and help everybody be better informed. That is especially important when making an assertion on something that already has active disinformation campaigns surrounding it.
If you want to contribute positively to public discourse, you need a better strategy for fulfilling your burden of proof than the modern equivalent of “well, how about you prove God doesn’t exist”.
If someone is unaware of a scandal that has been all over the news for years, and then subsequent scandals, indictments, convictions, and very plausible evidence of more fraud, then it’s a sea lion.