5 ms·

My favorite trope on Reddit is when you explain something clearly and people respond that you haven't given an example or explained or whatever. It's not that y

My favorite trope on Reddit is when you explain something clearly and people respond that you haven't given an example or explained or whatever. It's not that you haven't explained, they just don't accept your explanation and demand more. I've taken to increasingly absurd responses to this trope. I often explain with perverse metaphors involving their mothers. Highly recommend finding your own flavor of fun responses to this ludicrous bad faith response.

wlesieutre 4y ago
And an obsession with sources. Which makes sense sometimes, but you can tell someone your favorite color is orange and they're not happy unless there's a Reuters article about what color you like.
- mcronce 4y ago
  Write a Medium article about your color preferences and link it. You might even make a few cents!
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Reddit has a massive hard-on for external authority in any conceivable context so it shouldn't be surprising that they want a citation if you say the sky is blue.
- freeflight 4y ago
  I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources. The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function. Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    It makes sense on Wikipedia. But meanwhile, Reddit seems powered by anecdotes but will ask for a source when you bring opposition. Motte and Bailey.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. If a source is requested, it should be obvious or explained where the source fits into the over-arching argument, it might require just as much work on the asker’s side, to establish why it is necessary. There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.
    - freeflight 4y ago
      > A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up? With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer. Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful. > There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion. You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism. It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.
      - wlesieutre 4y ago
        > It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. Source? ;)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    If you actually care to be informed you will at least try to find a source yourself first, even to use it to disprove me.
    - freeflight 4y ago
      If you actually care to inform, then you can add a source to give the information some third party background and more details. Expecting others to put in the work to authenticate your claims, by sending them on wild goose chases on Google that might or might nor yield the same results you got, is a recipe for getting overwhelming amounts of disinformation. As it's way easier to casually claim an unsourced falsehood, than it is to research a topic and debunk that falsehood with credible sources.
      - Consultant32452 4y ago
        It's this way of thinking that has made requesting a source the new "Nuh-uh." A better response is, "I see it different, here's a source I'm providing or story of personal experience that suggests why. Do you have other context or information that could help me understand your position?"
- bee_rider 4y ago
  A request for a source should include an argument for why a bit of information needs a source (what facts are in question, and how they impact the broader argument). A lazy “sources please!” should be treated as bad faith attempt to DDOS the other participant.

wlesieutre 4y ago

And an obsession with sources. Which makes sense sometimes, but you can tell someone your favorite color is orange and they're not happy unless there's a Reuters article about what color you like.

mcronce 4y ago
Write a Medium article about your color preferences and link it. You might even make a few cents!
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Reddit has a massive hard-on for external authority in any conceivable context so it shouldn't be surprising that they want a citation if you say the sky is blue.
freeflight 4y ago
I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources. The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function. Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  It makes sense on Wikipedia. But meanwhile, Reddit seems powered by anecdotes but will ask for a source when you bring opposition. Motte and Bailey.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. If a source is requested, it should be obvious or explained where the source fits into the over-arching argument, it might require just as much work on the asker’s side, to establish why it is necessary. There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.
  - freeflight 4y ago
    > A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up? With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer. Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful. > There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion. You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism. It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.
    - wlesieutre 4y ago
      > It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. Source? ;)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  If you actually care to be informed you will at least try to find a source yourself first, even to use it to disprove me.
  - freeflight 4y ago
    If you actually care to inform, then you can add a source to give the information some third party background and more details. Expecting others to put in the work to authenticate your claims, by sending them on wild goose chases on Google that might or might nor yield the same results you got, is a recipe for getting overwhelming amounts of disinformation. As it's way easier to casually claim an unsourced falsehood, than it is to research a topic and debunk that falsehood with credible sources.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      It's this way of thinking that has made requesting a source the new "Nuh-uh." A better response is, "I see it different, here's a source I'm providing or story of personal experience that suggests why. Do you have other context or information that could help me understand your position?"
bee_rider 4y ago
A request for a source should include an argument for why a bit of information needs a source (what facts are in question, and how they impact the broader argument). A lazy “sources please!” should be treated as bad faith attempt to DDOS the other participant.