3 ms·
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this assertion. Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension, and The Heartland Institute has
by MilStdJunkie 3y ago
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this assertion. Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension, and The Heartland Institute has a very well-established legacy of communicating in extraordinarily bad faith. It's far better to identify deliberately dishonest sources before you start kicking their junk around in your brain.
- kcplate 3y ago> Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension No, not comprehension, it has nothing to do with that. You can comprehend a topic presented without alignment with the source. The source may create a bias for how much authority you will give to the argument presented. Perhaps it’s zero, perhaps it’s more and you are willing to put aside a bias against the source to consider the argument.
- nvm0n2 3y agoIt's obvious that none of the people slamming the source here have ever read anything by these groups. You are all long on failed attempts at guilt by association, and short in explaining what any actual problems are. Honestly I think all such comments should be considered intellectually incurious and banning offences here, given the pride in aggressive moderation. It's just so tedious that every time someone posts something from a conservative source, half the comments will be exhortations from leftists to automatically ignore the article based on an endless stream of insinuations and ideological babbling. If you have a problem with the article then let's hear it. If you have a problem with the people saying it because they aren't in your tribe, then please butt out of the conversation so the rest of us can have a proper discussion.