This is such disingenuous bullshit. If you're making an outlandish claim, then the burden of proof is on you. Plain and simple. If you don't have a "source" then you at least need something to substantiate your conjecture, otherwise it's completely worthless.
And the average person on this forum does the inverse to the exact same degree of cognitive dissonance. Don't act like you've got one up on the average normie.
Asking for a source used to be a cornerstone of any conspiracy discussion. People don't get that posting a tweet from a random blonde bimbo on Twitter or a crazy lawyer isn't a source, it's heresy.
There are some important differences: one group still has the good mind to distrust government and media, they still use objective reasoning not absolutist appeal to authority like the left/normies. Sure, they may be nearly as propagandized, only from the other angle, but they still have sovereignty over their mind and can change it at will. It's not just 2 sides of the same coin
Not kidding myself, maybe you are. One side can at least see that the biggest election in history was just outright stolen. I'd say there is a discernible difference there.
They see that because they want to see that, just as the other side sees it otherwise for their own reasons. If you’re going to start talking about MAGA cultists as a group of logical minds, you’re gonna lose me.
I hope every body likes sources otherwise it's just worthless dribble. They don't have to be great source but have something.
This is such disingenuous bullshit. If you're making an outlandish claim, then the burden of proof is on you. Plain and simple. If you don't have a "source" then you at least need something to substantiate your conjecture, otherwise it's completely worthless.
Too accurate
This one hits close to home lol
Reminder: asking for source is not an attack on your argument, but merely a request to make your claim more convincing to the skeptics.
That said, deboonked is definitely a copout argument.
9/10 times, they are hoping you dont produce a source, so they can claim victory
True, but asking for source in and of itself is not malicious. If you can't back up your claims, you're spitting bullshit.
And the average person on this forum does the inverse to the exact same degree of cognitive dissonance. Don't act like you've got one up on the average normie.
Harsh but true. People take a fucking Pepe on Twitter as a verified source and don't think twice about it.
Asking for a source used to be a cornerstone of any conspiracy discussion. People don't get that posting a tweet from a random blonde bimbo on Twitter or a crazy lawyer isn't a source, it's heresy.
Ad hominem
Saying "ad hominem" doesn't negate what he's saying. Go back to the kids table.
There are some important differences: one group still has the good mind to distrust government and media, they still use objective reasoning not absolutist appeal to authority like the left/normies. Sure, they may be nearly as propagandized, only from the other angle, but they still have sovereignty over their mind and can change it at will. It's not just 2 sides of the same coin
What a crock of shit. Objective reasoning? That left the building a long time ago. Don’t kid yourself.
Not kidding myself, maybe you are. One side can at least see that the biggest election in history was just outright stolen. I'd say there is a discernible difference there.
They see that because they want to see that, just as the other side sees it otherwise for their own reasons. If you’re going to start talking about MAGA cultists as a group of logical minds, you’re gonna lose me.
You are always the smartest guy in the room, right?