Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread
 
  • Post
  • Reply
socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

No, this absolutely should not become the expectation, because it takes far more effort to refute a bad source with multiple good sources, than to post that bad source in the first place. This is such a widespread problem that there is even a name for it: Bullshit Asymmetry Principle

Just like how the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, the burden of showing that the source being posted is a good source should lie with the person posting it. Expecting others to do the harder work of refuting that source is ridiculous.

I very much agree with this, sometimes the person doesn't even need to post a source. Someone like a month ago posted simply "Biden is senile" and when someone said that he obviously has some function left Majoran threatened the second person to post sources but not the first. There seem to be a series of claims that you can post without evidence and anyone who disagrees is forced to post evidence and it never leads anywhere good.

* # ¿ Feb 2, 2021 22:12
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 18:52
  • Quote
socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

A Buttery Pastry posted:

If you just enforce:

- State what the source(s) say(s)
- State what your position is vis-a-vis the topic of the source

then that should take care of a lot of it, just because people have to actually engage with the tweet before posting. For tweets that do get through, that's mostly just embarrassing to the poster. Sure, if the same poster keeps getting fooled then you can consider doing more about it, but badly presenting real sources seems way worse to me than being fooled by satire, from a debating point of view. The latter is almost by definition bad faith, while the former just requires you to be gullible.

Yeah it really depends on how often a person does it. Everyone misreads something once in a while but if this is your 20th misleading hill tweet in the past week then you are just being an rear end in a top hat.

* # ¿ Feb 3, 2021 07:34
  • Quote
socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003

Insanite posted:

Should the Feb. 2 Tara Reade piece on RT have been banned from USPol and maybe all of D&D?

Also, if this thread is not about all of D&D, the title needs a change.

Was anyone banned for posting that article? Does the existence of that one article allow full out trust of RT without question or further explanation?

* # ¿ Feb 9, 2021 15:56
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread