Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely...
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with 'sources' that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit...
It's called a "gish gallop" mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of "ain't nobody got time for that". To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it's a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn't do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain't got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they're not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition's view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I "pepper" is if it's to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don't usually send a large reading list, usually it's one article or book with an explanation of why it's relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
The evil version of this is when people cite a click bait article, you go to the article and read the attached study and the study is not backing up their claims in any meaningful way. Like come on bro you clearly haven't read this study don't cite it and claim I need to educate myself.
I think it's totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn't been true for over a decade?
Not if it's a thing that everyone experienced first hand and everyone remembers.
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
70s, 80s and 90s were absolute peak humanity and things like these comments are the proof of that.
Let's not vilify people asking for citations. With AI it's more important than ever to verify what you're reading.
I'm absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.
The historical existence of snow depends on where you’re talking about. Climate is changing but not every manifestation of that will cause less snow. It’s possible some places start getting more as rising temperatures create more moisture in the air in places that are historically cold and dry. For example, parts of the mountains here in Nevada had unusually high snowfall, like Lee’s Canyon While looking at (what appears to be) the historical data for the US overall doesn’t seem to show a significant deviation at a cursory glance.
Saying these things are obviously true while not bothering to check if they’re factually accurate is misrepresenting the problem and leaves openings for climate denialists to make themselves more credible. “You said snowfall was going down but it just saw record snowfall in the news!” Which is a bad argument but a convincing one to people who aren’t inclined to deal with a global apocalyptic problem.
I'm talking about the fact that it ever happened, at all, anywhere. In this sense and in this spirit that I say "the historical existence of snow." It's not about a particular place or amount.
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn't going to attack them. It's a defensive organization.
That's what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who "they" were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn't nato)
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that's without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
If somebody would ask for a source it would already be a big improvement. Usually you are just classified as idiot if you dare to have a different view.
Eh. By now I'm pretty sure most people just interact with the internet in order to reconfirm their already held beliefs because they expect the algorithm to give them exactly what they want and a few "wrong" things to dunk on easily for bonus points.
They don't need sources they are already right.
I'm rather certain that a good chunk has no clue about any algorithms and just beliefs that their point of view reflects reality
Winter is on its way out due to climate change. In around the year 2100, it's estimated that there will only be 3 seasons left, no winter. And summer will be much longer and much hotter. So the 3 seasons will be spring, then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That's it.
But you can already see the disappearance of winter today because there's much less snow and it's much warmer than like 30 years ago. (Speaking for Germany)
nah, we still have winter. i know this because it still gets dark.
we'll still have four seasons: summer, hellfire, second summer, moist dark.
Brace yourselves. [Winter isn't coming] is coming. That's the winter. The new winter. That's the bad news.
Hidden panel: guy on left saying “google it yourself, don’t expect me to have to teach you anything”
