Asklemmy

50501 readers

1172 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why do people ask you for sources of information when they're the same people who disregard truth and facts? (kbin.melroy.org)

submitted 3 days ago by Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

To me it is about gaslighting and arguing for the sake of arguing. We've long been in this realm of society now where nobody wants facts or truths, they just want you to be wrong. I have before, cited resources in arguments I've shamefully invested in, knowing that it will not matter in the end. Because I'm still going to be called a liar, I'm still going to be subjected to insults and be baited and gaslit.

And the same people still turn around and expect credible sources to be provided to them? Why ask when you don't care?

It is one thing for someone to make outrageous, blatant and unclaimed arguments than it is another who talks of something and it has a resemblance of truth to it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I often ask for source.
And sometimes I find that it's headlines that are sensationalist or a specific interpretation of something.

Like, someone claims 'XYZ believes/supports in ABC', often to paint XYZ badly. I ask for source on it and they give an article where the XYZ is talking about something related to ABC or talking with someone related to ABC

I also ask for source, because of that.

As an example:
I had heard lots of anti-socialist stuff like the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR invaded Poland etc. After joining lemmy and some reddit subs, I came to know about how the USSR was one of the last countries to create a non-aggression pact and other countries like Britain, France already had pacts and agreements. And that it happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came togethe to allow the Nazis annexation of Czechoslovakia.

I also learnt about how Poland invaded Czechoslovakia together with Nazi Germany and also denied USSR's request asking permission for passage of its army to Czechoslovakia against the Nazi invasion.

So, I understand the value of asling for source and getting the context.

I do try to share sources as possible too. Though, it's mostly wikipedia articles and may not be seen as a primary sources, but still.

1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
1935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

So everyone had pacts and agreements with everyone, but when taken out of context and presented to denigrate, it has an effect on some.

So, generally I ask for source or context for most things