• Lemminary
    link
    English
    0
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m not saying you should “just trust” but that you have an issue with trust that’s getting in the way of a healthy skepticism and exercising critical thinking. I’m all for distrusting the internet but you can’t just raze it all and call everything lies. Especially when you then turn around and spread hearsay.

    You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago?

    No, I want you to look it up in less than a minute. That’s less than half the time it took you to write your comment. It serves many purposes like:

    • Proving it to yourself as much as proving it to me
    • See how skeptic or gullible you may be by the type of source you do trust
    • Make sure we’re on the same page
    • Sticking to facts instead of relying on memories

    You’re saying you don’t want to participate, so why should I trust you at all? Because In less than 30 seconds I found this:

    We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to an investigation that indicates a co-founding editor engaged in plagiarism. The plagiarism was not related to Fact-Checks and they remain credible for fact-checking.

    Full story here.

    Two highly reliable sources mean they’re reasonably trustworthy, and way more trustworthy than you are, random chatter. And it turns out that what you remember from many years ago is quite different from reality.

    So if you don’t want to participate in “a little act” that’s fine, but at least don’t spread false claims. After all, we do live in a society.

    • @Mango
      link
      English
      15 months ago

      The only issue you have with my trust is that I do not trust you and what you think are the cheat codes for belief.

      Two highly reliable sources mean they probably have aligned goals.

      I’m not spreading claims. I’m showing people how they don’t have to believe under pressure.

      • Lemminary
        link
        English
        05 months ago

        These aren’t cheatcodes. Maybe they’re shortcuts for like degrees of certainty with low margins of error, sure. But do you think I suspend my own critical thinking immediately when I read them? I’m aware that that specific piece of info could be faulty. Do you really think people are this naive? lol

        Two reliable sources that coincide with the source means they’re being truthful. It’s weird that you dismiss them without good reason at all.

        See how your own distrust colors your perception here? Could there be collusion? Sure, but it’s highly unlikely but you’re almost certain. Why? And besides, you’re foregoing so much more, ironically risking the spread of even more misinformation on the internet that you already distrust for the sake of an ideal. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. lol

        Like I said, I’m not denying that there could be collusion–and even drifting ideals or whatever–but I’d be more concerned about whatever you have going on if I were you. There is such a thing as objective reality, after all.

        I’m not spreading claims

        You literally just spread misinformation based on your own faulty memory and I caught you red-handed. How can you even deny this. I won’t convince you that what you’re doing is questionable or that your reasoning is faulty, but at least stop doing the very thing you’re complaining about.