You must log in or register to comment.
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
Isn’t 2034 when we start 1970 again? Except without water.
when we start 1970 again
I fucking wish.
People who make memes mocking the expectation of a source are the ones responsible for the downfall of society
Source?
Not everything needs a source. There is such thing as “common knowledge” . Things get very out of hand and very messy if you try to source EVERY claim. Obviously there are limits to this and I put common knowledge in quotes for a reason but seriously I mean it when I say not everything needs a source.
Boo hoo.
ngl, I don’t comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya’ll, I’ve got a job and a life, I can’t/don’t want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly “infill” everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that’s what they see.
Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.
Now I kinda understand why “just look away” makes no sense to these kinda people.
This is my first exposure to this idea and it’s quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that’s a recipe for disaster.
The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn’t help the perception that a question is actually an attack.
I first heard about it due to my buddy (a high school English teacher) complaining about how his incoming students were incredibly far behind in basic reading comprehension skills. We ended up having a pretty long talk about it, and he mentioned that all of his colleagues have noticed the same thing.
I did some digging, and discovered that language teachers everywhere have basically been lamenting the fact that the upcoming generation just straight up doesn’t know how to interpret media when it falls outside of their personal algorithms. I ended up talking with another buddy of mine (a writer for a magazine) and he mentioned that they have started needing to change the way they write, because people have simply lost the ability to comprehend what they read. Skimming the first one or two paragraphs is the new norm, even for in-depth news articles. So they have to load as much content into the early paragraphs as possible.
I’m wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.
I’ve had people go “I don’t have time to read 3 paragraphs!”, as though that’s some kind of argument against the point I’m trying to make. Attention spans are down.
I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.
For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.
It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.
Let’s not vilify people asking for citations. With AI it’s more important than ever to verify what you’re reading.
amen
Sealioning is not about citations. It’s bad-faith harassment.
Bad faith only works because it resembles good faith. Calling it out is not somehow a condemnation of good faith.
Pretty bold comment for someone with no sources.
I’m absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.
This is Puerto Rican erasure.
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.
You get people who believe jet contrails only started appearing in the 90s even though that they didn’t is literally within living memory.
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.
Spoken like someone who’s never experienced the ancient healing frequencies :p
Average YouTube influencer for me.
It’s gotten even worse in the past year. Most of them sound like they’re parroting AI summaries of blog posts and sprinkling stupid ass cutaway gags to memes. Like rather than actually consuming the entire body of context around a subject and having an informed take, they’re just giving shallow thoughts and trying to monetize.
Any YouTuber whose whole angle is to spicy commentary on current events in tech/programming is definitely part of the trash heap.
Problem here is you’re watching “influencers.”
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it’s own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It’s page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I’ve easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Ding ding ding. I actively refuse to do homework from randos on the internet.
Aka, “Why Don’t You Respond to Criticism?”
It all boils down to bad faith. They don’t care what argument you make, you’ll never sway them. They’re not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you’re finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they’ve already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it’s the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don’t even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn’t fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn’t afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We’re really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn’t even really solve the problem, because we’re all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
it’s almost like we’d make better pets than masters.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I’m having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
Let it go. Move on to those more receptive.
but those that aren’t receptive are literally the problem. american politics has been a 60/40 split with unequal representation for decades. the gears of government are locked in a bitter struggle where not enough is getting done and the problems keep piling up.
Focus on “joy” and hope you are rich enough to feel really good about life until it all blows up?
That seems to be the stance of the younger and the wealthier left, and you can see the nightmare self hatred that is already causing if you aren’t.
i can’t tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not but this is godawful moral advice.
“stay comfy and forget about it if you can”
do we or do we not have an obligation to be stewards of the earth? obviously the decision is a personal one. i guess i’ve decided with my post existential thoughts that we do, and that if you don’t agree with me, i don’t want you on my team. or the planet for that matter.
Its pretty godawful advice.
But it’s advice I do see going around and people taking seriously.
so what is the most logical step if we are to avoid a global catastrophe?
Well that’s why the point of arguing with other people isn’t really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it’s just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you
I remember when one conservative parent was absolutely furious with GW Bush over invading Iraq. Then they were all in MAGA for nine years. They’ve finally disavowed that one, but I don’t know how much time they have to come further left, or how the trajectory may shift. We actually had a pleasant few days together, with each of us clenching our teeth and walking away a few times, but that’s any relationship. Some things we (everyone) feel strongly about really aren’t worth that argument. In fact, a lot of them.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn’t matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
black pilled as fuck
Unless it’s common knowledge or easily sourced.
no. support your claims
Common knowledge You don’t have to back up absolutely everything you say with evidence (or you’d soon run out of wordcount to advance your own point properly!). Some things are common knowledge. That could mean that a fact is just generally known by everyone, and not disputed or in doubt. This could include:
•facts such as London is the capital of the United Kingdom •well documented dates such as the start of the First World War in 1914 •H20 being the chemical formula for water •things which everyone knows from their lived experience, such as the sky is blue.
Edited for formatting
those examples I could accept but I think a lot of people use imparted wisdom as “common knowledge” and we should drill down on any claim that is disputed.
Prove it.
you see that you just did, right? it’s tautological.
Yes, my friend, I did see.
Twitter is bad.
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
The hero we deserve.
No source needed, carry on.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is “winning” as soon as it’s asked
There are clips out there of FOX news saying “if global warning is real, then why is there a blizzard?!”
Republicans have a hard time understanding nonliterals, it’s honestly weird and one of the most common denominators between them I’ve noticed
Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice even if that choice dooms us all. Liberalism is going to collapse in the silliest way
Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice
Every one who wants something other then what i want is uninformed.
To the uninformed, no representation for you. Get over it. Go to therapy to cope with your new forever.
Yeah when it comes to fascism, climate change denial, failing to meet the basic needs of citizens, and other conservative platforms, I don’t give a shit about their representation
The goal should be to have less uninformed people overall by educating the population. But unfortunately the people in charge keep voting against funding education (and basically anything beneficial to society).
Capitalism wants an uneducated voter base, we can import educated people for jobs
That is because it’s beneficial to their bottom line.
They seem to be fine with euphemisms and dog whistles.
Maybe willfully ignorant is a better way to put it
I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.
Sealion infestations are problematic. Be sure to call your local exterminator promptly whenever you encounter one.
Where’s your source for this? I’ve never noticed it so it must not be happening
It’s gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.
Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.
I’ve heard a saying, two things you should never do on the Internet are argue or explain. It takes up a lot of mental energy and time to do it for no reward.
Source?!
/s
Is that what the s stands for?
Yes.
I think in many cases the people who explain things are doing a huge service. They’re silently appreciated by many. The true GOATs of the internet.
I’ve read so many great explanations on Reddit for things in math, science, literature, etc and I feel very grateful to the people who explained them.
Yes. The thing to remember is in many cases you aren’t explaining for the person you are debating with or answering a question for. You are doing it for others who may read the conversation.
I’ve had things brought to light in online discussion change my mind or educate me many times. When I see someone claim these conversations are useless or a waste of time, I just think they are really setting weird criteria for what constitutes a waste of time.
Sure, sometimes I ain’t got no time for that, but other times I do, and I figure the same is true for many others as well.
Askhistorians is king.
Also trolls and propagandists employ bad faith tactics specifically to make their opposition do the bulk of the world, which they either ignore after or they just laugh at for some bullshit reason they claim is a gotcha.
There is an Islamophobic author who has been employing shit like in his books since the 90s. It isn’t new at all.
Oh you don’t understand how much reward i get on tiktok for proving my point so much that i get blocked.
It brings me unfathomable joy
birds used to be real
Source? Because that’s so not true. Birds are an invention by the government, they are robots to spy on us. The government wants us to believe they always existed. It’s all fabricated lies created by the government. Source
I fucking hate newsletter emails but this is the only site I registered for one. I’m launching my ass off every single time. 😂 I love satire haha
And they had arms
Obviously, that’s what the “arms race” refers to. Birds used to have very strong arms which they used while racing in their super-fast arm bikes.
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.
he’s also adversarial ai
70s, 80s and 90s were absolute peak humanity and things like these comments are the proof of that.
Seriously, though, not fair. Want a way out of this hell.
True neckbeards are born with it. It’s only the posers that get theirs by injecting PFAS into their balls.
and his willy is 8 inches long but he’s insecure because his ai girlfriend told him its small
Don’t worry. It won’t happen like this. There will be no one left.
SOURc…
