If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist?
-
That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.
This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.
-
-
-
Same reason I don't provide a source magic and wizards and fairy tales not existing. Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn't care what your source is.
-
For the sake of clarity, do you think that journalist should directly cite their sources in their work?
-
S [email protected] shared this topic
-
I don't follow how your point(s) relate to this post's topic.
-
-
[…] We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
I hesitantly agree, though I would clarify that I don't think that's an argument for not improving the justice system.
-
Thank you for the source
-
[…] Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn’t care what your source is.
I do understand your point, I think. I've had an ongoing quandary regarding how one should effectively debate irrationality. But I still personally believe that one's allegiance to the truth is a matter of principle rather than a matter of pragmatism. I think sources should be cited not necessarily with the intent of using them as ammunition to prove an argument, but mainly for one to ground themselves in evidence based thinking.
-
In theory, yes. But thats not how social systems work. If you build a selfsustaining cycle of abuse held in place by dopamine inducing mechanics like easy to consume media you can manipulate people to do whatever you like, see the current shift to fascism. Nobody with a hint of compassion would vote for a fascist, hell nobody with an ounce of self interest would do that but here we are. Its like asking drug addicts to just not use the stuff. Not how humans work.
