Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why I don't provide sources

As a former progressive, now right wing supporter and amateur political pundit, many times I express my opinion and get asked to provide my "source" on the matter.

Unless I am directly quoting something or someone, I don't bother providing my sources for my opinion.

Let me explain why:

Typically, this sort of challenge is not in good faith and is usually someone's challenge to "prove it" to them. I used to provide sources. I recall many a time carefully going through my links, finding the best ones, then providing them for the challenger. More often than not, one of 3 things would happen:

1. They ignore it completely, move on, or pretend they never saw the links.
2. They reject it out of hand, usually claiming that the source is unreliable and does not meet their standards for consideration.
3. They cherry pick a portion of the article, claim it's wrong, and then dismiss the entire argument due to this one factoid they feel is erroneous.

I've interacted with a few exceptions on this site, and for those I will make an attempt to share my info, but more often than not, my suggestion is for people to do their own research.

It's what I do. If I hear something I am skeptical on, I do my own searches, consult my own sources, and make up my own mind as to its legitimacy.

Thanks for reading.
This post is closed and no longer available for commenting.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
exactly and they will use Snopes😂 or Wikipedia😂 as fact-checkers to try to prove you wrong. (Snopes is run by a couple who work out of their home). They want us to hand over our sources and then spin them around so much it confuses others.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@cherokeepatti Reuters is another go to 'fact checker' The ones with the green helmet guy and the body bagged moving corpses. Facebook said in court that their fact checks were just opinions.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@hippyjoe1955 Yes they have used Reuters to try to discredit. Isn’t that a British site?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@cherokeepatti I'm not sure what nationality it is. I know it is a world wide network of news accumulators. They feed their information to the major networks and get paid to do so.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@hippyjoe1955 and you never know if some entity like the CIA has their wicked fingers in it either like they do CNN and some of those radio groups that broadcast propaganda to people in other countries to start wars. I believe the Bosnian-Serbian war was started that way.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@cherokeepatti Absolutely. CNN is not on the air because it has enough ad revenue to stay in business. They don't have any viewers. No legitimate advertiser is going to run an ad on that network. CNN is a deep state operation funded in part by big pharma but I repeat myself as big pharma and deep state go hand in hand.
room101 · 51-55, M
@hippyjoe1955 Reuters is one of the most credible (if not THE most credible) news agencies on the planet. It's been going for 170+ years and employs more than 3,000 journalists and photojournalists world wide. But you don't like them because...............oh yeah "green helmet guy" and "moving body bags".

And your go to corroboration is "personal experience". 🤦‍♂️

@cherokeepatti Reuters was formed, in London, in 1851 by Paul Reuter. Who was German. Its headquarters are still in London but it operates globally. And that seems to be a problem for you because...................🤷‍♂️

Oh and btw, no, it's not a site. It's a news agency.
This message was deleted by its author.
room101 · 51-55, M
@Muldoon Nupedia was founded by Jimmy [b]Wales[/b] and Larry Sanger in 1999/2000.

It was an American corporation.
Muldoon · 56-60, M
@room101 thanks!
This post is closed and no longer available for commenting.