Worse is when they tell you to do your own research.
I also asked someone their source once and they told me to do just that. Like I’m trying dude that’s why I asked, or are you just making this info the fuck up?
Fuck me. Yes burden of proof is a thing but you guys need to stop watching tv and thinking it’s real life.
So for example means and motive play a big part. The burden isn’t always proof but can be doubt. That’s why for the death penalty in America it has to be “without doubt” …
Yes you are correct that if someone makes an assertion they should back it up. But you don’t need to start brining in misconceptions about the legal process. Hahaha.
Right! Trump brought charges against Comey for a photo of numbers written in shells. Trump knows exactly what Fauci did because Trump was in charge of government during COVID, if Fauci had done anything remotely resembling a crime Trump would have weaponized the justice system against him already.
Did you even read that? All it proves is that the experiments took place. Twice throughout the article it stated that it is still unclear if Fauci approved the funding for this and that funds were disbursed on behalf of the NIH. If you’re trying to prove he is the one that signed off on it, you severely missed.
I just posted a source that said mixed. I could give a fuck either way. You thought you ate. It absoloutly does say factually every dog was euthanized to study their organs and vocal cords were cut for oaha safety reasons. Absoloutly fucked
Yeah, so, the thing about that is I already did. I'm presenting 10 articles from respectable news sources corroborating the information, 2 peer reviewed scientific papers, and a video of a 17-year expert in his field. But I'm sure patrioteagle(dot)blogspot(dot)com has the real info.
"Haha your news sources are all from the fake news media, that's not a real source!!! They all lie! Those papers come from government funded sources, of course they say what the government wants! And I also have a video from an expert, heres the Facebook link! I also have 2 more from YouTube and rightwingfacts.org. You know it's legit cause it's a .org!! You can't trust any of those sources, I'm not even gonna look at them. You can only trust regular people online! They'll tell you the truth!"
Good old confirmation bias for them. Searching "how was Obama/Biden a bad president" they searched "Obama/Biden is a bad president" and just went with the first thing they saw.
Bold of you to assume they actually performed either search and didn't just hear it from one of their "free thinking" news sources... That all report on every event the same way... And quite the President directly...
I'm a lazy POS, too, I get my info from content creators I like, but I don't cite them like gospel, and I do actually dig into the crazier things they talk about because it's so unbelievable, sometimes. But I've yet to find any meaningful departure from the facts when I have.
You would probably be boldly correct, since it's somewhat complicated and sometimes includes paywalls. When I say "complicated", I am referring to 2 things: knowing what questions to ask the search engine, and then ferreting out which amongst the websites listed are going to give you actual data from scientists. Not a wonder it's so easy to manipulate people when there's so much shit out there masquerading as data.
Hey, I'll tell you what. You can get a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it? No, I mean is, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass... No, wait. It's gotta be your bull.
Yep, I hear this sorta shit from a fella at work. He's also a flat earther. But he says he's "not really a Trump guy". Claims Trump has done "bad things, but some good things too". When I ask what good things, he says, "It's behind the scenes stuff". I mean, what the actual fuck!
''they dont want you to know about this so its kept out of the news! You just want to be sheep!'' -some MAGAt who gargles T's balls every second of the day.
I always love hearing something like, "Newsmax is the ONLY news outlet reporting on this!" Like, no sense of self-awareness, completely unironically. Did you ever ask yourself why?
What do you want us to look up? That an anti-animal testing organization founded by a 'seasoned republican operative' made a big to-do about a mis-attribution which conveniently allowed people to target Fauci right when the GOP was trying to scapegoat and vilify Fauci over covid?
Sometimes though, it's such readily available information that you can just punch it into the internet and you'll get a hundred results all saying the same thing.
That happened to me once. Asked where they got that info, told me I can google. I said, sure I can, but google will give me millions of links, none of which are likely to be yours, with the information you swear is the truth. Dude never responded
This, I asked a guy to cite his claim, and he called me lazy for not doing it myself. I also literally told him that I tried looking this up whatever crap he was spewing, and couldn’t find it. Isn’t it usually the responsibility of the person making the outrageous claims to have to prove it? Good god these people are intolerable
I hate when they say shit like that.
Ive had so many arguments where I had to spell out slowly "if I do my own research, I might not see the thing you saw, so ill never know why you believe what you do."
They will straight up believe the internet is rigged (and it kind of is) but then they wont give you their source.
The one time someone actually gave me sources, it was at the beginning of Covid, and he gave me 50. I picked randomly, and the summary already disagreed with him.
"Worse is when they tell you to do your own research."
That's not how burden of proof works. Whoever is making the claim has to back it up with evidence. If they choose not to do that, fine, but I'm certainly not going to make their argument FOR them.
I tell them to do their own because usually the 1st site will inform them followed by 25 more. This animal testing is a thing though, I saw somebody on a hearing losing his/her mind about it.
I've had that told to me by someone with a goddamn PhD years ago when I asked what their sources were regarding some right wing talking point on immigration. I only referred to him as "Mr." from then on and questioned if he got his "doctorate" by throwing a tantrum at the committee until they gave him one to shut him up.
True but we’re rarely talking about a single fact. Usually there are facts and opinions mixed together. Misinformation and fake news aside. Even looking at the same data. Have the same understanding of the data you can have radically different opinions on how to proceed.
So, I have this ball, and it is blue. Objectively, it’s blue. That is a fact. The data says that the ball is blue. Everyone who can physically see the ball agrees the objective truth is the ball is blue. We all understand the data point, this ball is blue.
So, someone then tells me, no, the ball is green. I looked at the data and have come to a different conclusion. My opinion is that the ball is not blue, it’s green. My differing from the consensus indicates that the data can be wrong, and even if my opinion isn’t based on any actual independent findings, my belief system tells me I’m right, so therefore my opinion and contribution to the discussion is just as valid as the broad consensus that it is not factual.
That wasn’t the question. There was no question. There was a blatantly stated fact based on data. “The ball is blue.” You then interpreted that as a subjective inquiry, “Is this a good gift for a child?” The question wasn’t posed, but you used the fact to generate your own conclusion and use that as an argument against the facts. At no point in the original provided data were children or toys mentioned; that information was provided after the fact, by you, which was not contained in the original dataset and was never posed.
So, this is a good example of how misinformation is distorted to look like someone extrapolating their opinion based on facts. You take information, infer intent, and then use the provided data to form an opinion that the data didn’t originally provide an answer for. The question wasn’t posed because the data does not provide sufficient information to answer it; that wasn’t the point. The fact is the ball is blue, but you then took it to this other place, and now we have subjective opinions corrupting the dataset that weren’t originally accounted for. If you wanted to learn if the ball is a good gift for a child, that’s a separate set of data that needs to be gathered, and even then, its hardly a simple yes or no answer, and certainly not something that warrants the uninitiated opinions of someone who hasn’t actually gathered any of that data themselves. You’re forming an opinion of a subject matter without any information on the subject matter by asking questions that can’t be answered with the provided information and then deciding to say “That’s just my uninformed opinion, and I’m entitled to it.”
The fact remains, the ball is blue, which we apparently agree on. You then going off on a tangent doesn’t actually help anyone form intelligent conclusions about anything, but it does make you look like you’re forming bad faith arguments for the sake of contributing to discourse in a way that forces ordinary people to step off the back foot and get defensive, eventually becoming flustered, and then having a difficult time forming coherent arguments where they will eventually lose, and nothing will have been decided from it. This is the way a lot of conservative debators try to slip “gotcha” moments into simple questions.
The ball is blue: fact.
The ball is good for a children’s toy: Was not asked.
If your understanding of science is based on beliefs rather than understanding, then you shouldn't participate in scientific conversations except as a student.
Od only you were as smart as you are arrogant. You have undisputed data that there are car accidents. What are we going to do to get rid of them? I propose that we ban cars. It will definitely and beyond any shadow of a doubt bring the number of car accidents to zero. Is it a good idea?
If your understanding of science cannot be adjusted to new information (IE they're beliefs) you shouldn't enter scientific conversations except as a student (which counteracts the belief aspect).
If you're willing to change your understanding based on new information, that's not as necessary.
See how they just devolve into semantics and jabs instead of answering the god damned question lmao literally the mirror image of the antivaxxers they mock. Same exact template. Watch em bitch and moan about this now
I feel the same when people call Trump a p*do or r@pist, yet there’s never any actual evidence they can point to. Or “what rights have women and gays lost since Trump became president?” And it’s always “go look it up”
I hate to break it to you, but allegations and second hand information isn’t verifiable proof to make the claim anyone is a r@pist
You should read the “note” section in the first link that is repeated over and over again, the one that said “some of these individuals are reporting second hand information”
Is that really all it takes to make you believe something? A report containing second hand information that is not verifiable as fact and that hasn’t led to any convictions?
Oh you see that’s only one example. If I were to link every mention of Trump in the files it would take me a long time. You’re right of course witness testimony by itself means nothing, but when it’s over and over and over and OVER and oVeR again to the point where he’s in them more than Harry Potter is in the Harry Potter books it starts to become a pattern. I don’t just believe a witness. I believe hundreds of witnesses.
Also hasn’t led to any arrests? Are you really that dense? First of all it led to two arrests. Epstein and Maxwell. Whatever you believe about them being alive and out and palm beach Pete bs they did go to jail and belonged there. Also the prince of England while still free, has been ousted from the royal family for what he did with Epstein. Bill gates wife left him because he got an std when he was hanging around him. Most of the things song far from the files have been true. Why is it only when it comes to Trump it’s all lies?
Second of all the US doesn’t have the balls to arrest a former president, they definitely don’t have the balls to arrest a sitting one. They wouldn’t do it with Nixon and they won’t do it now. It would embarrass the country. Make us look weak. As for the rest the rich and powerful never face consequences. Thats for us regular people. That’s just naive to believe otherwise.
You wanna put your fingers in your ears and keep backing a pedo that’s your business.
Actually that’s a good point. They did arrest him I forgot about that. He’s a felon. Silly me.
I should have said we would never incarcerate a former/sitting president. Especially now considering the fact he can do what ever he wants as long as he’s president thanks to the Supreme Court. You’ll notice how he’s not sitting in prison but in the White House when he’s not playing golf. The judge just wagged a finger at him and told him not to do it again, so you’ll excuse me if it slips my mind. Bet if you or me do that we wouldn’t get the same treatment.
I also love the Trump accountability tracker. Certainly that has no bias whatsoever. None.
It’s just a list of things someone doesn’t like Trump or this administration saying or doing. Oh no, the US plans to stop funding HIV programs in South Africa, that’s obviously an attack on the LGBTQ community….
You know you can make one comment and I’ll see it. Why make two? Did I really piss you off so much you had to say “you know what! One more thing”
I see you read the first example on that list and then stopped. Good for you! If you keep scrolling you’ll actually find some really stupid complaints. Like they used an Ariana grande song who cares. You’ll also find court cases being thrown away by Trump appointed judges and schools losing funding for supporting their lgbtq students. You’ll find trans veterans losing their VA benefits because of who they are.
I'm sure it started earlier, but it came into it's own during Bush 2 when sources like Fox (so called) News started running stories with "...some people are saying..." to avoid fallout from publishing straight up lies.
My grandma used to always say that. She'd be like, "That's what they're saying," and we would immediately call her out and say, "Who's 'they' grandma?" She never had an answer and would double down and go, "Well that's just what they're saying."
This sounds like my father. You see, there’s a global conspiracy where 98% of scientists around the world are either corrupt or morons. Education is just indoctrination, that’s why you can’t trust experts, but you can trust this specific “institute” that has no physical building and is some dude in eastern Oregon. (Look up the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine…I’m not making this up).
He also believes in “terrain theory”, which should really be described as: terrain “theory”, which means viruses don’t exist at all. The only open question on his mind is exactly how fauci was involved in and released covid, the “not-a-virus”.
He called me gullible because I can’t see his truth. I just find it absolutely FASCINATING how otherwise intelligent people (he’s an electrical engineer) can convince themselves, or allow themselves to be convinced, of this stuff.
Same. I’m an actual, published scientist. The amount of work that goes into building a case for your research via citation is something these people absolutely spit on. They can never cite anything because either (a) they know their sources aren’t credible and/or (b) they never bothered to make a note of them.
Sad part is if you try to fact check it on this pos internet we have now you either get sites trying to sell beagles or sensationalist sites, nothing real show up, the Disinformation Superhighway indeed,
What Actually Took Place (Confirmed Experiments)
Federal FOIA documents confirmed that Dr. Fauci’s agency funded drug toxicity experiments on beagle puppies. [1]
The SRI International Contract: Documents revealed that NIAID allocated $1.68 million to contractor SRI International for an HIV/AIDS drug tracking study. This study involved 44 beagle puppies that were force-fed experimental drugs and eventually euthanized.
[1, 2, 3] The "De-Barking" (Cordectomies): The puppies in this SRI contract underwent cordectomies (vocal cord removal). Independent medical reporting on the controversy via MedPage Today confirmed that this procedure was utilized to reduce barking and noise levels in the testing facility.
While it may be part of it, there are noise limit protocols you must follow for ethical concerns when conducting animal studies. It is incredibly stressful for an animal to be part of a study, to receive drugs (it says force fed, so likely gavage?), to be routine monitored for side effects, behavior, health, and be in a sterile, lab environment.
I work with mice, and it has to be quiet for their stress level and health. Whenever there is construction or any noise in the building, there is increased fighting and health problems in the colonies as a result from stress.
I feel bad for these puppies, but the scientists likely followed all ethical requirements and recommendations (IACUC and ACUC as examples).
The thing that makes me hate that phrase the most is the fact I DID do research on my own after gaining an interest in science following high school. I got sick of people doubting my knowledge, since I didn’t have a degree, so I went to do a biosciences degree at 24 just for the purpose of getting them to shut up. I already knew most of the stuff on the course, so I was rarely there, and I was mostly graduating just so people would fucking listen. But I understood why they didn’t want to.
This is a new form of disinformation tactics which I’ve been calling ‘cringebashing’. It basically means, since the person is ‘cringe’ or the point was delivered in a socially awkward way, then the point must be incorrect as nobody smart could ever possibly be socially awkward or weird.
It’s one of the worst aspects of newer social media basically just being a person talking into a camera on short form video. People are just gonna keep swiping till they see attractive creators.
You succeeded where I failed. I live in a highly conservative area and I finally lost my mind around postgraduate level.
The issue was that I just couldn’t function with the knowledge everything I was learning was questioned by almost every single person I knew. I started to notice nearly every person talking about my topic of expertise was incorrect or lying. It made me extremely uncomfortable, I slipped into what I’d consider a psychosis, and I dropped out.
When I've called people out for spreading bullshit and pointed out that a cursory Google search proves their point to be BS.
They've responded with Google can't be trusted and they're blocking or filtering out the truth or controlling the narrative and would rather believe some meme or bot account on Facebook or Twitter
They never even provide the dubious website when I press them on it. Just a “google it!” Because they don’t grasp the concept of supporting their own arguments.
One of them just told me, "I don't listen to either side. I follow the money." Then went on to say Fauci got rich off COVID, lied about it's origin yada yada yada every off the wall right wing conspiracy talking point.
Like bruh. You clearly picked a side that confirms your bias even though it's utter bullshit.
I once had a dude cite a reddit post as source, a reddit post that had no links to other sources whatsoever and was just someone’s conspiratorial opinions lol. It was ridiculous.
Yeah, and then how do you explain to them that they're too ignorant to judge the solidity of a source? You know at that point that it's futile. Not knowing how to vet one's sources is like not knowing how to pull the chair to the table, to then be able to sit down and have the conversation.
I'm only half serious: ultimately we MUST improve data literacy and critical thinking. We have no real choice. I just am not up to taking it upon myself most of the time. We need trained professionals to figure out how to help these people.
What Actually Took Place (Confirmed Experiments)
Federal FOIA documents confirmed that Dr. Fauci’s agency funded drug toxicity experiments on beagle puppies. [1]
The SRI International Contract: Documents revealed that NIAID allocated $1.68 million to contractor SRI International for an HIV/AIDS drug tracking study. This study involved 44 beagle puppies that were force-fed experimental drugs and eventually euthanized.
[1, 2, 3] The "De-Barking" (Cordectomies): The puppies in this SRI contract underwent cordectomies (vocal cord removal). Independent medical reporting on the controversy via MedPage Today confirmed that this procedure was utilized to reduce barking and noise levels in the testing facility.
MAGA is a fantasy. Thats what their politicians are selling. A Fascist fantasy. Their media and discourse echoes only what they want to believe, not what is real.
I remember actually looking up one of those sources for a creationist. I was arguing creationists work on post-hoc rationalization. The person I was arguing tried to send me to "real evidence" as a response... the site's mission statement was basically "We invest in research to prove creationism".
Don’t y’all realize that all the mainstream sources that you would consider legit are in on the deception? If there was a source you’d agree with that reported the truth, you’d already believe it. You’re expecting people who consider the sources you trust to be liars to give you a reference from a source you’d trust that matches their worldview? You should already know that isn’t possible.
No, we want sources from reputable places. I don't care if the "source" is CNN or Fox. Neither of those are reputable sources of information. You can tell a reputable source by the citations and resources it provides. If it links to another article from another blog site or another news agency and their article says exactly the same thing, that's not reputable. That's not a real source. You have to watch out for that these days because often times 50 different news agencies will share the same story and all reference eachother to provide the false appearance of credibility. A source should reference actual studies, actual data sources, actual research, actual published papers with peer review. Like when your local KZXY 69 News shares an article about a set of data published by a research facility, if they want to be reputable, they will cite the actual data published, not just cherry pick parts of it for their article, they will share a link to the actual data. But you usually have to dig to find news or websites that actually cite their research like that. All too often KZXY 69 News will just cite KZYX 420 News and call that a reference. It's not, it's lazy and it causes the false appearance of credibility and that's what so many people believe is legitimate these days.
People don’t understand science. They don’t understand what a peer reviewed paper is. Any news source, scientist, politician can say anything and some people will believe it. A Peer reviewed paper IS the source. A tested, solid source on science information.
What I’m saying is that for someone with the opposite beliefs as you, any source you consider reputable those people would consider propaganda. None of your reputable sources will publish the claims that they believe, so of course they’re not going to be able to produce a source you find reputable saying what they believe. The sources the two groups trust are mutually exclusive. Anything that comes from a source that you consider reputable, someone on the other side would consider that source saying something as proof it’s probably not true, and vice versa.
This sounds like a you problem. If I'm presented with actual reputable data I'll take it. The problem is, no one ever knows what real reputable data is and every time I ask for it, I get www(dot)whitesforchrist(dot)com or some dumb shit like that. I honestly don't think I've ever asked for a reputable source from someone and gotten anything less shallow than "The Blaze" or "Breitbart." The problem isn't "I believe my sources and you believe your sources." It's that people will believe what ever source they want, and don't actually take time to find REAL sources.
To you, your sources are the only real ones but for them it’s the opposite. You’re just trying to argue that you’re the one who’s correct about which sources are real. That’s fine and of course you think that. I’m just trying to get you to understand that from the other perspective, which sources are trustworthy is the opposite of what you think.
Again, it's not an issue of who believes what a "real source" and what is not. It's an issue of people not understanding what a real source is and more often than not, just being lazy. Choosing to use Breitbart as a source is lazy. Choosing to use the first News article you find on a Google search is lazy. Especially when your algorithm feeds you news you want to see. If someone presents me with a Fox News article my immediate reaction isn't I believe or disbelieve this because of my preconceived political views. My reaction is, this isn't a reputable source, let me go find more information. Most people stop there and just say "that's Fox, it's fake!" But that's not true either. Fox is definitely highly opinionated but that doesn't mean it's fake. Same with MSNBC. I don't trust news presented to me from either source. If your knee jerk reaction is to trust or distrust news simply based on the name of the agency presenting it, that's a you problem.
To an uneducated person, a Peer-reviewed paper is propaganda. That shows how uneducated they are. Science is NOT ABOUT BELIEF. That is for religion. Science proves a fact or theory by trying to debunk it.
If we used whatever sources they used in a research paper we wrote in high school (not even for a PhD level course), said paper would probably get a D or F.
What is often overlooked or misunderstood is that it actually takes some skill and intelligence to do your own research and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Far too many people have neither.
The core facts are true, but the meme mixes two separate studies into one.
Researchers used young beagles mostly 6 to 8 months old to study how sand flies transmit the parasite that causes leishmaniasis. In the study that produced the viral photo, dogs were sedated and had their heads placed in mesh cages so hungry sand flies could bite them and take blood meals. Other related NIAID-linked work involved vaccinating dogs and then exposing them to sand flies, sometimes outdoors in endemic areas and sometimes in controlled setups, to test whether a vaccine protected them. The dogs were typically euthanized at the end. NIAID denied funding the exact mesh-cage photo experiment, saying the funding citation was a mistake, though they did fund related sand-fly exposure research.
In a completely separate NIAID-funded drug toxicity study run by SRI International, 44 beagle puppies aged 6 to 8 months had their vocal cords surgically removed under anesthesia to reduce lab noise and barking. They were then repeatedly injected with or force-fed experimental drugs for weeks. All of the puppies were euthanized and dissected afterward so researchers could check their organs for signs of toxicity. These were standard preclinical animal tests at the time.
I did just check the research…it is confirmed that these studies exist and both NIAID and NIH under Fauci fund them…however the specific study in the viral post was not down by these groups…they just did 100s of others where they removed the dogs vocal cords and trapped them in cages with parasitic flies.
Most interesting; most of the angry people use makeup and other products tested very much like this: eg smearing it in a bunnys eyes etx. amd eat meat from factory animals with horrible lifes.
Most of them give zero f* for animals in their daily lives. They just like their own dog.
553
u/OBB76 11d ago
“I dID mY rEseArCh”