3 ms·
I don't know what you are going on about. I started my first comment with "I'll admit I have no idea if the story is true" so it should have been clear that I
by slg 5y ago
I don't know what you are going on about. I started my first comment with "I'll admit I have no idea if the story is true" so it should have been clear that I was not siding with either Ukrainian or Russian sources on this specific issue.
I also didn't need "five paragraphs of disclaimers". I didn't even need five words of disclaimers. A simple "They're biased but..." at the start of that original comment and I wouldn't have felt the need to respond.
You don't need to overanalyze my comment. I simply think that if someone asks for a source and your only response is a source of questionable accuracy, that you should acknowledge that the source is not authoritative. I found it funny that this was happening in a conversation that was already about how many sources can't be trusted so I commented to point these two things out. It isn't any more complicated than that.
- xyzzyz 5y agoI assumed you need a thorough explanation, considering your statements like “Knowingly posting an untrustworthy source without any remark on its untrustworthiness implies that you believe that source.”. No, this is simply untrue. That’s not how it ever worked. Western media will happily relay Russian claims without adding disclaimers about trustworthiness of Russian media in each and every instance. The main reason to add disclaimers like these is to in fact signal allegiance to opposing side.