>The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. That's not an effective counter at leas

>The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. That's not an effective counter at least as far as my observation goes. These jerks win not by backing up their asinine claims with sources. They win by diverting everyone else's energy away from debating their asinine claims to making the debate one of sources. Heck, a good chunk of the time they do it you don't even need to find other sources because they're just using junk journalism where the title says A but the article says B. If being "proven wrong" was actually detrimental to their causes they would modify their behavior. I'm sure one of our resident link-spewers will be along shortly to disagree with me and then edit his comment five times adding subsequent links to garbage that nominally back up his assertion...