Exactly like the classic fallacy they love to use:
Lib cites public CIA talking point as proof we need to bomb X country.
You say, "The CIA lies about this stuff all the time, here's an internal CIA memo where they discuss lying and controlling the media to generate fervor and consent for killing these other people"
The lib says, "Aha, so the CIA isn't a trustworthy source but you're citing them here"
This way they can
A. Dismiss criticism against CIA
B. Maintain that the CIA is a trustworthy source.
C. Prevent you from citing the CIA despite them supposedly believing it is trustworthy (when it says stuff they like).
A lot of people just sort sources into either either implicitly trustworthy or implicitly untrustworthy, which is extremely not how you're supposed to treat sources.
Exactly like the classic fallacy they love to use:
Lib cites public CIA talking point as proof we need to bomb X country. You say, "The CIA lies about this stuff all the time, here's an internal CIA memo where they discuss lying and controlling the media to generate fervor and consent for killing these other people" The lib says, "Aha, so the CIA isn't a trustworthy source but you're citing them here"
This way they can A. Dismiss criticism against CIA B. Maintain that the CIA is a trustworthy source. C. Prevent you from citing the CIA despite them supposedly believing it is trustworthy (when it says stuff they like).
A lot of people just sort sources into either either implicitly trustworthy or implicitly untrustworthy, which is extremely not how you're supposed to treat sources.