You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
Average YouTube influencer for me.
It’s gotten even worse in the past year. Most of them sound like they’re parroting AI summaries of blog posts and sprinkling stupid ass cutaway gags to memes. Like rather than actually consuming the entire body of context around a subject and having an informed take, they’re just giving shallow thoughts and trying to monetize.
Any YouTuber whose whole angle is to spicy commentary on current events in tech/programming is definitely part of the trash heap.
Problem here is you’re watching “influencers.”
Spoken like someone who’s never experienced the ancient healing frequencies :p
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
Or you can get a monthly subscription for only $39.9!
That subscription allows you to ask the question to an AI that may or may not hallucinate.
Well, then… At least we will have apparently made enough progress by then to have eliminated the penny from circulation.
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
True neckbeards are born with it. It’s only the posers that get theirs by injecting PFAS into their balls.
and his willy is 8 inches long but he’s insecure because his ai girlfriend told him its small
Seriously, though, not fair. Want a way out of this hell.
70s, 80s and 90s were absolute peak humanity and things like these comments are the proof of that.
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it’s own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It’s page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I’ve easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is “winning” as soon as it’s asked
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Unless it’s common knowledge or easily sourced.
no. support your claims
Common knowledge You don’t have to back up absolutely everything you say with evidence (or you’d soon run out of wordcount to advance your own point properly!). Some things are common knowledge. That could mean that a fact is just generally known by everyone, and not disputed or in doubt. This could include:
•facts such as London is the capital of the United Kingdom •well documented dates such as the start of the First World War in 1914 •H20 being the chemical formula for water •things which everyone knows from their lived experience, such as the sky is blue.
Edited for formatting
Prove it.
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn’t matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
black pilled as fuck
Twitter is bad.
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
The hero we deserve.
Lets not forget that it’s about more than just that person. It’s about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
I bet they saw the source and said “oh, yes, thank you for the source, I have updated my opinion based on this new information.”
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Aka, “Why Don’t You Respond to Criticism?”
It all boils down to bad faith. They don’t care what argument you make, you’ll never sway them. They’re not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you’re finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they’ve already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
Ding ding ding. I actively refuse to do homework from randos on the internet.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Let it go. Move on to those more receptive.
but those that aren’t receptive are literally the problem. american politics has been a 60/40 split with unequal representation for decades. the gears of government are locked in a bitter struggle where not enough is getting done and the problems keep piling up.
Focus on “joy” and hope you are rich enough to feel really good about life until it all blows up?
That seems to be the stance of the younger and the wealthier left, and you can see the nightmare self hatred that is already causing if you aren’t.
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it’s the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don’t even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn’t fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn’t afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We’re really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn’t even really solve the problem, because we’re all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
it’s almost like we’d make better pets than masters.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I’m having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
deleted by creator
Republicans have a hard time understanding nonliterals, it’s honestly weird and one of the most common denominators between them I’ve noticed
They seem to be fine with euphemisms and dog whistles.
Maybe willfully ignorant is a better way to put it
Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice even if that choice dooms us all. Liberalism is going to collapse in the silliest way
The goal should be to have less uninformed people overall by educating the population. But unfortunately the people in charge keep voting against funding education (and basically anything beneficial to society).
That is because it’s beneficial to their bottom line.
Capitalism wants an uneducated voter base, we can import educated people for jobs
Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice
Every one who wants something other then what i want is uninformed.
To the uninformed, no representation for you. Get over it. Go to therapy to cope with your new forever.
Yeah when it comes to fascism, climate change denial, failing to meet the basic needs of citizens, and other conservative platforms, I don’t give a shit about their representation
Let’s not vilify people asking for citations. With AI it’s more important than ever to verify what you’re reading.
I’m absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.
This is Puerto Rican erasure.
The historical existence of snow depends on where you’re talking about. Climate is changing but not every manifestation of that will cause less snow. It’s possible some places start getting more as rising temperatures create more moisture in the air in places that are historically cold and dry. For example, parts of the mountains here in Nevada had unusually high snowfall, like Lee’s Canyon While looking at (what appears to be) the historical data for the US overall doesn’t seem to show a significant deviation at a cursory glance.
Saying these things are obviously true while not bothering to check if they’re factually accurate is misrepresenting the problem and leaves openings for climate denialists to make themselves more credible. “You said snowfall was going down but it just saw record snowfall in the news!” Which is a bad argument but a convincing one to people who aren’t inclined to deal with a global apocalyptic problem.
I’m talking about the fact that it ever happened, at all, anywhere. In this sense and in this spirit that I say “the historical existence of snow.” It’s not about a particular place or amount.
Pretty bold comment for someone with no sources.
Sealioning is not about citations. It’s bad-faith harassment.
Bad faith only works because it resembles good faith. Calling it out is not somehow a condemnation of good faith.
amen
Source please
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
Marxist-Leninist books I recommend
Such as? Need a book to read next.
Depends, how familiar are you with Marxism?
The very broad strokes (not red-scared).
You’ve got a bit of a choose your own adventure!
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
If you want some quick reads, I love Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Modern analysis, 20 minute reads, based on what we currently know and not written back in the period of Marx.
Finally, if you consider yourself a Marxist already, The State and Revolution as well as Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism are both Lenin’s most significant works.
Really though, the modern works and Blackshirts and Reds are great primers before delving into Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves.
Woah! Thanks for the tips!
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you’ve read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren’t Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
2·5 months agoA cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with ‘sources’ that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit…
It’s called a “gish gallop” mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of “ain’t nobody got time for that”. To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it’s a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn’t do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain’t got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they’re not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
Already feels like this sometimes
Source?
Since this is an opinion statement, you’re actually quoting the primary source right there!
Yeah here you go!
I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.
Sealion infestations are problematic. Be sure to call your local exterminator promptly whenever you encounter one.
Where’s your source for this? I’ve never noticed it so it just not be happening
Winter is on its way out due to climate change. In around the year 2100, it’s estimated that there will only be 3 seasons left, no winter. And summer will be much longer and much hotter. So the 3 seasons will be spring, then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That’s it.
But you can already see the disappearance of winter today because there’s much less snow and it’s much warmer than like 30 years ago. (Speaking for Germany)
Winter isn’t coming
Brace yourselves. [Winter isn’t coming] is coming. That’s the winter. The new winter. That’s the bad news.
nah, we still have winter. i know this because it still gets dark.
we’ll still have four seasons: summer, hellfire, second summer, moist dark.
Oh yeah if summers so great why hasn’t there be a summer II?
then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That’s it.
Like in the tropics, dry season and rain season. Or drought and flooding season of we’re unlucky.
30 years ago we definitely had snow in winter. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But I remember playing in snow basically every winter as a kid. And I’m living in a very mild region of Germany. Now I’m considering all season tires (just for legal purposes) to not change wheels twice a year, since there is maybe some snow for one week in total.
Spoke with a guy this week who was born in the 30s. He said winter back then was much harder. Whole lakes or even rivers were frozen solid. I can’t imagine being able to walk to the other side of a major river…
I remember ice-skating every winter as a kid. Rivers were frozen over solid, too. Sometimes, there were two separate layers of ice on top of each other, each being several cm thick. It kind of went away in the late 90s. I guess everybody just thought the ice and snow would return someday. Now even snow has gotten really, really rare where I live.
I’ve already had people demand “source?” for the most mundane facts. Why yes steroids do enhance physical ability.
source?
Read the comment above yours, that’s where I learned about it
this guy showed up with receipts
Source…
People are interested in sourcing of information in 2034? I see that as an absolute win.
ngl, I don’t comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya’ll, I’ve got a job and a life, I can’t/don’t want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly “infill” everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that’s what they see.
Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.
Now I kinda understand why “just look away” makes no sense to these kinda people.
I’m wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.
I’ve had people go “I don’t have time to read 3 paragraphs!”, as though that’s some kind of argument against the point I’m trying to make. Attention spans are down.
I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.
For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.
It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.
This is my first exposure to this idea and it’s quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that’s a recipe for disaster.
The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn’t help the perception that a question is actually an attack.
I first heard about it due to my buddy (a high school English teacher) complaining about how his incoming students were incredibly far behind in basic reading comprehension skills. We ended up having a pretty long talk about it, and he mentioned that all of his colleagues have noticed the same thing.
I did some digging, and discovered that language teachers everywhere have basically been lamenting the fact that the upcoming generation just straight up doesn’t know how to interpret media when it falls outside of their personal algorithms. I ended up talking with another buddy of mine (a writer for a magazine) and he mentioned that they have started needing to change the way they write, because people have simply lost the ability to comprehend what they read. Skimming the first one or two paragraphs is the new norm, even for in-depth news articles. So they have to load as much content into the early paragraphs as possible.
“If it doesn’t apply, let it fly.” “Hit dogs holler.”
What, feeling too good for an unproductive Internet fight with strangers who probably would agree with you if they could read?
I think it’s totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn’t been true for over a decade?
Not if it’s a thing that everyone experienced first hand and everyone remembers.
“The sky is blue”
“No stupid that’s woke liberal propaganda Trump 2024”
What, you’re saying that the sky is owned by democrats now? Give sources, cause my sky is Republican Red! /S
(Infuriating TikTok voice:) “These red states are putting atmospheric additives in their coal plants to turn the sky red! Wow!”
