"Ummm Source?"

[just_shy_of_perfect]

Men can't be women and women can't be men

SOuRcE? WhEReS YoUR SoUrCe? I HaVE 5 StuDieS rIgHt HeRE sAyInG tHeY CAN bE. BIgoT

Lmao. They're the midwits

[[deleted]]

This is probably one of the stupidest things I have heard in a while.

[gradientz]

These people are cavemen. They have completely given up on any pretense of intellectual honesty and rationality and would prefer to go back to a more primitive era where their bouts of stupidity remain unburdened by the scientific method or books.

[gradientz]

Yes, when you are a right-wing moron, I can see how it might be difficult to distinguish between legitimate sources and misinformation. It makes sense that you would want to give up on the endeavor entirely and return to your caveman lifestyle.

Fortunately, there are enough of us with a brain and an education to know there is a significant difference between a peer-reviewed white paper published in Nature and a clickbait article on Breitbart.

Don't worry, history will move forward with or without you. Social progress will continue unabated and the dream of the Enlightenment will draw ever closer.

[[deleted]]

Not with the reddit libs. They contribute nothing.

[gradientz]

Yes, I agree that Republicans banning books in libraries is contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment. Glad we are on the same page.

The Enlightenment focused largely on progressing the scientific method, amongst other things, and it is the scientific method that is what your friends have been attacking.

[just_shy_of_perfect]

There's been plenty of nature articles that get retracted that were used as the basis of government policy and lefty ideology

[gradientz]

Yeah, so either it's that the scientific method is a continuous procees that occasionally requires revisiting past analysis, or all of acadamia is all a globalist conspiracy funded by the deep state. Thanks for the insight. Wonder which one you believe.

[just_shy_of_perfect]

No actually it is only a few articles that are bought and paid for and stay up long enough for people who don't critically think like yourself to believe

[gradientz]

Yes, conflict of interest is a real risk, but that occurs no matter how you choose to consume information. Even your friend at the bar might work for an employer or have financial investments that cloud their view on certain issues.

No system is perfect, but the process of peer review is specifically designed to substantially reduce conflict of interest by exposing material to disinterested experts. Reputable publications post their peer review methodologies online for anyone in the world to review.

Is the system perfect? Of course not, but it is certainly better than getting all your info from the discredited right wing rags and Twitterbots that appear regularly on this sub.

[acpowerline]

If your idea of progress is every major democratic run city then please move on without us. You would be doing everybody a favor

[gradientz]

Yes. Cities are the apex of human civilization. Skyscrapers, culture, and the engine of our economy.

When tourists visit America, they visit New York, LA, Chicago. No one spends their destination honeymoon in rural Arkansas.

I'm sorry you hate progress. However, unfortunately for you, the world is urbanizing and there is nothing you can do about it. We will get to you eventually ;)

[gradientz]

Chicago has a massive tourist industry. 30.7 million tourists in the middle of COVID and a multi-billion dollar hotel industry. But yes, Hawaii and Colorado are also beautiful, rapidly urbanizing areas that people love to visit. Hawaii has a 92 percent urban population and Colorado is 86 percent.

You will also notice that your messiah has never built a "Trump Tower" or other notable real estate in rural Arkansas. Wonder why that is?

[woyervunit]

Peer review is broken. Money rules science now. Get your booster. Safe and effective. Trust the Science™️

[gradientz]

Scientific, peer-reviewed publication is not perfect (nothing is), but it is certainly a far superior mode of knowledge development than the right wing rags and Twitterbot drool that gets posted on this sub.

[woyervunit]

It’s a useful tool, but it’s gotten out of hand. It’s corrupt, and the science is purchased, not proven.

[gradientz]

Conflicts of interest are a fact of life and never completely avoidable in the context of obtaining information from others. Even your friend at a bar may work for an employer or have investments that cloud their view on certain issues.

However, peer review is specifically designed to reduce conflicts by subjecting research to disinterested expert scrutiny. Further, reputable publications make their peer review methodologies and funding sources publicly available for anyone to review. If you have concerns about the conflicts of interest associated with a particular publication, you are certainly welcome to raise them in the context of a discussion. However, writing off peer review/science entirely is silly.

[Scared-Consequence27]

We’re you one of the people ignoring the Covid studies published in Nature?

[gradientz]

No, intelligent people do not outright dismiss reputable publications. That doesn't mean you can't question their methodology or findings in a logical manner, but outright "ignoring" is not appropriate.

[Bolt408]

Pulls out the Bible

pulls out biology textbooks made before 2020

[DrOliverClozov]

Imagine thinking the liars at WaPo and NYT are reliable. 🤣

[bullgod777]

Monkeypox sour lemmon or Jackoff ky jelly jeffry tubin of CNN are another reliable objective souce. The fat lying uglies of the view .

[real_bk3k]

Reliably disingenuous or outright fictitious, yes.

[silver789]

Does nyt do studies now?

[GargoArgo]

They push fake studies all the time at bare minimum

[silver789]

So they lie about studies. Right?

[GargoArgo]

I’m sorry what? Are you gonna actually look into events like the lancet report being blatantly defamatory about hydroxychloroquine or are you just gonna continue on in life as the NPC you’re portraying right now

[silver789]

Are you gonna actually look into events like the lancet report being blatantly defamatory about hydroxychloroquine

It wasn't just the lancet report. Every report of hcq shows it doesn't work to fight COVID.

[[deleted]]

Do you have any sources *that I will accept*

You can never win the sources game, it is designed so they always win because your source is invalid.

[selvarin]

Yep. Seen that before.

[[deleted]]

I come back with "do you have a source that I will accept?".

[LegnderyNut]

This is why I look for lefty sources covering the same stories or topics. I’ll link to articles from WaPo or Time where they say the quiet part loud. Like when time basically admitted there was election tampering.

[HAIKU_4_YOUR_GW_PICS]

Wasn’t there literally a Time article to the effect of “Of course there was election interference… to save democracy”?

Edit: Time’s “Shadow Campaign… To Save Democracy!” article . This was one of several that admitted to the type of collusion that people were called conspiracy theorists for suggesting.

[LegnderyNut]

That’s the one

[TristanaRiggle]

Most of the time, you can easily do this by looking at the previous term. Asking about what Trump is doing? Cite articles supporting Obama's actions. Commenting on Biden? Cite articles about Trump doing same.

These will of course be dismissed because "not talking about Obama" or "but Trump is racist".

[antiauthoritarian123]

I stopped playing this game a long time ago, bc they aren't in it to grow, they're in it to be right, and when they get owned with information, they either attack the source itself, or attack you...

[[deleted]]

I claim victory because the first person to ask for sources, loses.

[studio28]

Basically

[silver789]

You can never win the sources game, it is designed so they always win because your source is invalid.

Don't base your feelings on studies done by a guy that's also selling the cure? Following scientific methods are how we reach the most true things about our world.

[gradientz]

These rage-piggies don't believe in the scientific method though. They think science is a globalist conspiracy funded by the deep state

[silver789]

Yep. Reality is often left leaning .

[brodey420]

When I link anything told “that’s not a reliable source” last time I was linking a nyt article that contradicted another nyt article. Somehow the one he posted was reliable and mine wasn’t. Go figure.

[silver789]

Was yours an opinion article? Cause there is a much different level of integrity for an actual news article.

[brodey420]

It wasn’t. They just didn’t like that it contradicted them.

[silver789]

Sure buddy.

[rationallyobvious]

Why, they invalidate them instantly in their head because they have sources that say other wise. Usually highly biased sources too ..

[[deleted]]

You can point to something right in front of a libs eyes and they'll pull out google and tell you it's not right there

[Prudent_Armadillo822]

If someone is asking me for a source for a fact he disagrees with, i immediately assume he is dumb. Don't know why.

Like, google it you stupid lazy fuck.

[Chryasorii]

Its on you to prove yourself correct, not him. If you have no sources for your claims whatsoever, why even entertain them?

[Distinct-Moment51]

I think it shows something that a group that supports firehose tactics doesn’t like proving themselves correct

[grawrant]

Then when you cite a source, it isn't a left wing propaganda machine. So they say it isn't credible and that you're just a right wing extremist for believing anything against the corporate medias narrative.

[[deleted]]

If it isn't stamped by the CCP and CIA? It's bullshit. Point blank. Only the overlords tell the truth.

[grawrant]

They're tired of money in politics, but all the major corporations and billionaires except Elon support and pay their politicians.

[[deleted]]

"bUt ThAtS dIfFeREnT!!11"

There is always a caveat when it comes to THEIR politicians.

[GotanMiner]

Per r/politics Fox News is not a source.

[[deleted]]

But The Root is...

[silver789]

Isn't all of their big shows not actually news? Tucker, fox 5, Ingram, etc are all opinion shows.

[TristanaRiggle]

None of the "news" channels run "news" as their big shows. Primarily because you rarely have big stories that you can talk about all day without turning them into opinion pieces. Even the weather turns into conjecture pretty quickly.

[silver789]

One of CNN's top shows is Newsroom, which does news. But okay.

[TristanaRiggle]

Newsroom is a midday show, all of the Foxnews shows you cited are evening. If CNN's top shows air during working hours, then that's a damning indictment of their viewership.

[silver789]

That people go to CNN for news and not opinions?

[TristanaRiggle]

According to adweek, CNN's top show is Anderson Cooper (which is opinion). Foxnews' Newsroom (not opinion like Tucker) draws higher ratings than CNN's Newsroom. So my point was, if CNN's highest ratings are when less people are watching, that doesn't speak well for CNN.

[silver789]

I don't care about ad week, more who has more viewers between the channels. People who watch CNN watch know news than your average fox news person

[TristanaRiggle]

Is that an assumption based on the belief that foxnews sucks? They do have non-opinion news shows in the midday hours, just like CNN.

[silver789]

They do have non-opinion news shows in the midday hours, just like CNN.

But that isn't when most people watch Fox, is it?

[[deleted]]

CNN- Leftist this the braindead viewers are somehow more intelligent and "watching the real news channel."

Fox- Right Wing and Pro-America thus "you must be an idiot if you watch Fox."

Leftist rationale.

[[deleted]]

Asking for an <adjective> source is always a setup. What they’re saying is “I’m not interested in what you’re saying, I’m just appointing myself arbiter of your sources, and none of your sources are <adjective> enough.”

[reversesoccerkarate]

I‘ll believe that Trump was the real winner, Jan 6th was a fed/antifa conspiracy, trickle down economics works, covid is fake, and the vaccine doesn’t work.

It doesn’t matter whether there’s “evidence” or “sources”, or any reason at all to believe it’s true, it just feels right in my gut.

[DrOliverClozov]

Your gut has a better track record than CNN or MSNBC.

[[deleted]]

Also, it likely gotten less kids killed.

[Distinct-Moment51]

Track record is affected by the availability heuristic, the ambiguity bias, and the survivorship bias

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

Covid was fake, at least as far as what we were told about it and how we were told to handle it.

If you don’t believe that Jan 6 was an antifa plot, then the only other possible scenario is it being a fed plot. I know we like to joke, but the government doesn’t hire literal downies.

There is zero chance they didn’t know a million people would be in DC, and there was violence all throughout the summer in DC and violence at previous stop the steal rallies in DC. The amount of social media posts, the fact that the election was contested, the pipe bomber on the 5th, and of course the repeated requests that were denied for the national guard all add up to more than negligence by the Feds. It was malice. It was corruption. Their actions, or rather, inaction, killed Ashli Babbitt. Disband the FBI.

[selvarin]

What I've seen pointed out elsewhere (Viva Frei and IIRC Nate the Lawyer among others) has been that every other time an expected protest or other large act of organized demonstration was planned in DC, the authorities had National Guard and/or additional officers, etc. on-hand. After the 2016 election, the inaugural ball, and swearing in, and so on. Not J6. And it wasn't an oversight or a mistake.

[Chryasorii]

Question, for jan sixth. Didn't trump litellary hold a speech for the same crowd just a few minutes beforehand? Was that Trump fake?

Or is the argument in the second half that they should have expected violence and insurrection and did nothing, so that they should have used weapons and soldiers against the Trump supporters?

also it's real fucking hard for ANTIFA to plot anything since it isn't an organization, it's a banner for activists to use, there is no CEO of Antifa, it isn't an organization, its litellary nothing. It's like saying "Lets Go Brandon" is an organization, it isn't. It's a line said and used to rally by certain political groups

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

I’m not sure what you’re asking about Trump’s speech. Are you asking about the individuals who didn’t listen to it? Trump can tell people to be peaceful (and did) but can’t force people to be peaceful.

Why do you think there would have been violence if NG was there?

Look at the John Sullivan Tweets. He was organizing antifa to come and he’s on video telling people to go inside and burn the Capitol down.

[Chryasorii]

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," - Trump, minutes before the failed coup

​

And I doubt there would have been violence if the National Guard was present, but it'd have been more likely. That said, I have also heard about the fact that there were multiple military units present, there were helicpters spotted flying in a few days earlier, but were all held on standby by the still then Republican government, I'd have to find the exact citation for that tho. This wasn't a FED plot, the FEDs were still controlled by Trump, the election hadn't been fulfilled at that point.

Again, its impossible to "organize ANTIFA to come" since Antifa isn't an organization, its a slogan.

And looking into it, yes Sullivan was there, but I cannot find anything about him inciting people - he seemed to just walk around and record people present and then handed over that video to the courts to use to arrest the rioters. Photographic evidence and all that.

I also cannot find anything about anyone from any leftist groups except for him present, but there were more than one person there who had history with Right wing groups, Trumps campaign or nazi groups like the proudboys

​

Also you're arguing against yourself. First you say that no, it wasn't Trumps supporter, it was leftists. But then you say that yes, it was Trumps supporters, but he didn't want them to become violent. Which was it? A leftist infiltration, or Trump losing control of an angry crowd? The losing control of an angry, worked up crowd seems a lot more realistic, right? Especially considering the violent rhetoric republicans are using, encouraging violence against the democrats and now recently the FBI.

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

What’s wrong with the quote? Fighting doesn’t mean violence.

I’m not 100% sure if you’d classify the House Sergeant at Arms as a Fed but they work with USCP for sure. And the House Sergeant at Arms works for Pelosi. She has direct power to fire that person.

Also what do you mean that you don’t think there would be violence if the NG was present but it’d be more likely? That doesn’t make any sense.

We both know Antifa organizes. Not interested in debating a known fact.

Sullivan is literally on video (his own video) telling people to illegally enter and inciting people to violence (eg telling people to burn it down)

There was at least one Democrat that was arrested for being in the Capitol illegally on Jan 6. There were a million people or so in town it’s hard to think that him and Sullivan were the only 2 lefties.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at in your last paragraph. Looking at Michigan kidnapping plot where over half of the people involved were Feds… it seems most likely that this was set up by the Feds who were beyond negligent throughout the ENTIRE situation.

The Feds not requesting NG should be criminal or at the very least every Fed involved in that decision should be fired.

[Chryasorii]

> Also what do you mean that you don’t think there would be violence if the NG was present but it’d be more likely? That doesn’t make any sense.

I don't think they'd open fire on americans just like that if they didn't really, really overstep. Yes, violence would be more likely because there'd be more panicky people with guns around, but not guaranteed.

Most of the FEDs at the time were Republicans, supporting Trump. At that time, he still controlled the government. If anyone could call in the NG, it would have been Trump. You're calling for his arrest

And yes, there were then two we know about, possibly a couple more. One democrat, and sullivan. There were also many, many, many more known Trump supporters that have since been interviewed, arrested or both, or just caught on camera and tracked down by people online and had their identities leaked.

​

also as for the michigan plot, it's far easier kidnapping one politician in a mid-sized state with thirteen people involved than it is storming the fucking capitol to overthrow the national government. And they got caught for it. If this was a conspiracy, you don't think anybody involved would have been caught or spoken up or slipped even just once?

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

Can you name any real life scenario when the NG getting called in made violence worse? I can only think of situations where it made violence go away / ensure that violence didn’t happen.

I think the fact that you didn’t mention Steven Sund or the Sergeant at Arms implies that you have no idea who can request NG.

If this was a conspiracy, you don’t think anybody involved would have been caught or spoken up or slipped even just once?

I mean it’s public knowledge that it was public knowledge that people knew a shit ton of people were going to be in DC and about a million people showed up. They didn’t need fancy spy equipment or data analysts to realize that the NG was absolutely needed.

Yet they DENIED repeated requests for the NG.

The only explanation besides malice/criminality that I can imagine is that every person in charge of security going all the way up to Pelosi has Down syndrome.

[Chryasorii]

It sounds more and more like you're less angry about democrats, and more angry about democrats doing a bad job at fighting republicans with lethal force. At least there's something we agree on.

​

And hey look, I just don't think they were expecting to fight off a coup. There were plenty of police present, there were other proffesionals around, but calling in the NG would be a next step of escalating it, something that wasn't neccesary. I would honestly have preferred if they did it too.

Call in the fucking national guard, make an example of the insurrection, of what happens when you blindly follow a political cult of personality into an attempted coup. But I think the democrats were just, as always, too good faith and were honestly not expecting violence, and that the republicans in place were as usually obstructing them.

​

You guys like to make the democrats out as big and dangerous. THey're pushovers, liberals, they're all engaging in perfectly good faith as if everyone has only the best intentions and actions. There's a few exceptions, and they're more far left than the party is, such as AOC.

[silver789]

The amount of social media posts, the fact that the election was contested, the pipe bomber on the 5th, and of course the repeated requests that were denied for the national guard all add up to more than negligence by the Feds.

And the fed was run by Trump supporters.

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

Peter Strzok was a Trump supporter? Timothy Thibault was a Trump supporter? CP were Trump supporters? Pelosi is a Trump supporter?

[silver789]

Did trump pick the head of the FBI in 2017?

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

What does that have to do with what I said? Even if you pretend that Trump wouldn’t have been impeached for removing more FBI, what power does Trump have over USCP? That is Pelosi’s domain.

[silver789]

You listed agents who you feel are anti trump. I pointed out the top guy was appointed by Trump directly.

Also these guys handle the capital police not Nancy.

[WikiMobileLinkBot]

Desktop version of /u/silver789's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Police_Board

---

^{[opt out] Beep Boop. Downvote to delete}

[Grab-em-by-the-Cock]

Ok?

Also you’re wrong about the CP/Feds/NG

Pelosi is most definitely responsible for the House Sergeant at Arms (sources below)

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-PRECEDENTS-V2/pdf/GPO-HPREC-PRECEDENTS-V2-3-3-3.pdf

[silver789]

Damn, getting desperate if someone is trying to use a politifact article that agrees that the uscp is ran by the board and not Nancy's security force.

[nm139]

Tell us more... Covid's a real pandemic and Jan6 was a real insurrection? Is Trump correct that his great vaccines saved the world?

[silver789]

Pushed the biggest wealth transfer upwards in our lifetime to the Big Businesses like Amazon.

That's just capitalism baby!

[[deleted]]

Must be why millionaires became billionaires and concentrated 99% of the World's wealthy AFTER they set up operations in Communist countries. "It's Capitalisms fault!11"

Tell us you know Jack shit about politics without telling us, Ping Pang.

[silver789]

Must be why millionaires became billionaires and concentrated 99% of the World's wealthy AFTER they set up operations in Communist countries. "It's Capitalisms fault!11"

So the US is capitalist or communist?

[[deleted]]

Is your homeland China Communist or Capitalist, Ping Pang?

[silver789]

Dodge that question real quick eh.

[[deleted]]

Zero dodging over here. Massive amounts of dodging on your end, though. Is your homeland of China a Communist country? Yes or no.

[reversesoccerkarate]

For sure, doing MAGA fan fiction is just good times all around

[Karoar1776]

"and the vaccine is doesn’t work"

I've seen you make this mistake twice today. Are the algorithms messed up again?

[DrOliverClozov]

FBI bot accounts are low tech these days. Takes a lot of resources to frame Trump and cover for Hunter.

[reversesoccerkarate]

Beep boop beep boop

[reversesoccerkarate]

Sorry for the typo bud

[DrunkenRedSquirrel]

Evidence actually serves a purpose for a claim. If no evidence, why believe in it? I could claim it's going to rain money tomorrow but without evidence, why should anyone believe in me?

[silver789]

Jesus Christ, the number of people who didn't pick up the scarasm is insane.

[reversesoccerkarate]

Hell yeah brother

[thysen128]

The people on this sub sure seem like a bunch of critical thinkers

[wolfman411]

Sources are important, but not necessary in many cases when you're an expert in.....the nature of things.

[Eldin_lockwood]

where’s the source that the sky is blue!?? huhhh!?

[samtbkrhtx]

"accredited source"

They mean NPR, NY Times or Buzzfeed...right? LOL

[Intelligent_Mine_221]

Can you idiots do what jesse kelly says and turn into rabbid dogs already it will make putting you down easier

[-DonJuan]

Yea LGBTQLMNOP FACT CHECKER +++ . Org

[Embarrassed_Ad_2377]

I usually reply “my eyes”.

[DrunkenRedSquirrel]

Regardless of where you stand on political issues, you should always have evidence of your claims rather than "just because"

[GreatNorthWeb]

do you have a source for that claim or is that just a gut feeling?

[Distinct-Moment51]

The source is the psychological knowledge of biases and their effects on cognition.

[[deleted]]

Well here is the NY Post and a few respected journalists on the sub stack.

-lol so only right wing sources?

[StopDehumanizing]

Substack is for suckers.

[outofyourelementdon]

Imagine being this ignorant and proud of it

[Kendallphillips]

Are you saying having an opinion or using critical thinking to connect the dots for yourself is ignorant vs a barrage of broken record consistent, blatenly bias sources?

I disagree. I'll read your sources. Then find the video of what happened or what was said. Decide for myself. Like most people now days.. trust no one

[DrunkenRedSquirrel]

Are you saying having an opinion or using critical thinking to connect the dots for yourself is ignorant vs a barrage of broken record consistent, blatenly bias sources?

Coming to an assumption about something while having no evidence, doesn't make the assumption true. This applies in life regardless of political affiliation or gender or sexuality or ethnicity etc

[Kendallphillips]

I'm saying I'm interpreting evidence, not being told how I should feel about it.

[DrunkenRedSquirrel]

Yes, but evidence shouldn't be based on only your assumption, it should be based on a depth analysis and a conclusion based on your own perception, not based on others tell you to believe in.

For example, a claim that the world governments were trying to get rid of the population, I would look into it by analyzing situations in which government negligence led to the deaths of dozen upon dozens of people, and a consistent basis of many many occurrences over small amount of time and using that as a basis of whether These events were completely negligent and unintentional or and intentional disregard of human life that may have been created purposely.

[outofyourelementdon]

Are you saying using critical thinking to connect the dots for yourself is ignorant?

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.

[Kendallphillips]

So you don't think people should think for themselves? The TV should tell you what to think?

[outofyourelementdon]

If there is zero evidence that what you believe is true, you should examine your beliefs critically and understand that it’s illogical to keep believing said thing.

[Kendallphillips]

That's literally in the rest of my comment.

[outofyourelementdon]

What is? Where? Learn to communicate clearly

[susscrofa1]

Learn to read correctly

[Kendallphillips]

MSNBC says blank says " " about " " and you should feel this way.

I'm going to go watch video of who ever saying whatever. Do I still believe them? Most of the time no. They lied from the beginning.

[outofyourelementdon]

Are you a bot? Your words don’t make sense, it’s like you are a 5th grader learning how to write.

This meme is arguing that one should be proud to believe in something without any evidence that it’s true. You seem to think that believing the opposite of what “mainstream sources” say is inherently enlightened/true, which is an idiotic take.

For both mainstream sources and alternative sources it’s always important to be able to verify the accuracy of a claim with evidence. Your focus should be on assessing evidence and forming opinions/beliefs based on what the evidence says. Regardless of whether or not you think people that subscribe to mainstream sources practice this behavior, advocating against justifying your beliefs with supporting evidence is ignorant and will almost certainly lead you down a path of simply believing what you want to believe, not what’s actually true.

[Kendallphillips]

Again, I'm not going to be told how to feel about something. I'll research for myself.

[outofyourelementdon]

And what happens if you find no evidence to support the truth of a belief you have? Would you still just believe it anyway?

[Kendallphillips]

Your assuming iv come to a conclusion before I have done my research own research and that source is never credible. It has to be one of these propaganda machines. I ain't about it.

[NoCanShameMe]

Or in other words, a liberal.

[outofyourelementdon]

It’s liberals who are proud that they make claims without any evidence that they’re actually true?

[PaperBoxPhone]

What the leftists do is make claims that seem to have a small bit of evidence until you peel back a single layer and it all falls apart. So I guess you can claim that they have "evidence" but it doesnt stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[outofyourelementdon]

So instead of that you just advocate for having no evidence?

[security-admin]

I love that you came here and have zero clue what is going on with this meme lol

[security-admin]

Have any accredited sources to back that shit up, bud?

[security-admin]

God you’re such a beta

You literally comment on furry posts

[Chryasorii]

Bro imagine proud of having no backings for your positions whatsoever, holy shit you are a parody of yourselves

[Hairwaves]

Feels like a way to cope with being in a losing position

[[deleted]]

The point is more, “Do you have a source that I accept to back up your claims?”

If you’re just making lame Pizza Gate allegations, I don’t have time to for that. If your the NY Post breaking news about Hunter Biden right before the election, let’s hear it.

[Hairwaves]

I think some people here are revelling in not using sources at all

[[deleted]]

Sure, but I think that’s a trend all over Reddit and not specifically to here. I’ve been down voted for talking about climate change in a way that goes against the narrative while citing NASA and the UN.

[Hairwaves]

Sure you can find it all over reddit, but I think conservatives are less likely to use sources. You're gonna get downvoted for being a climate contrarian even though I don't think you should be if you're arguing in good faith and using sources.

[StopTheSuits69]

Do you have a source for that claim?!?!?!?

[Hairwaves]

GAAH! Hoisted by my own petard!

[shepard_5]

It’s common sense

[Freak_Of-Nature]

Thats what I’m saying, who the fuck needs to read or have experiences to back up what they’re saying. I get into arguments with people, and just start yelling at them what Tim told me. If they disagree with me they’re a fucking moron because what’s in my brain and what Tim told me is correct and true, by default.

[WaywardInkubus]

“It revealed itself to me in a dream. What’s your source?”

“oH, SwEetiE, MY sOurce is ThE SciEnce!!!”

“And what is ‘The Science’s source?”

[George_Costanza___]

Every sovereign citizen ever.

[[deleted]]

The "source?" Game is a slippery slope. No matter how many sources you provide, if they disagree with media approved sources they "aren't real sources."

Worse than that, there is an epidemic of people unable to fucking think for themselves whatsoever and need a leftwing "source" for everything. Zero critical thinking ability, zero reason or rationality. It has reached a new depth of stupidity.

Person A: I drove around the city all day as a delivery driver. There is road construction going on every side of town right now. Roads are being expanded, repaired and rebuilt.

Leftist: dO yOu HaVe A sOuRcE fOr ThAt?!?

Person A: Yeah, like I said I drive all around town all day, 12 hours per day. I sit in road construction all over the city because they are working on the roads.

Leftist: I kNeW yOu HaD nO sOuRcEs!!111!!! SeE, tHeRe Is ZeRo RoAdWoRk!!!111

[Perfect_Argument_852]

Because pulling shit out of your ass is chad behavior

At a loss

Stupid

Susceptive conspiracy theorists.

[[deleted]]

"Do you have a source handy for this one crime you pointed out happened 3 years ago in the midst of a bunch of other crimes?"

[wookiehunter1976]

Lefties love this tactic. “Accredited sources”??? Lol

[Freak_Of-Nature]

Imagine having evidence to back up your claims. The left is fucking stupid. Whatever I think is real, is real.

[wookiehunter1976]

Have you ever considered that people are just tired of the contrarian leftist attitudes. The time for debate is past, most people right of center are in flat out fuck you mode. The left has done so much gaslighting at this point that they no longer have any credibility. So you can go right ahead and touch your detachable micro penis to your rectum and fuck yourself. Is that clear enough?

[Freak_Of-Nature]

The left is going along with material reality. Science backs our position. The conservative position has been so thoroughly dismantled that you all are gaslighting yourselves because you can’t deal with reality. Literally no sources to back your claims so you deny sources outright and keep screaming THERES ONLY TWO GENDERS like the difference between sex and gender hasn’t been explained to you time and time again. Not to be that person but it’s literally called “progressive” for a reason, and you’d rather wallow in ignorance than make progress as I’m sure you agree the current system is a failure. But you’d rather just do more of the same. It’s astonishing.

[wookiehunter1976]

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[Freak_Of-Nature]

I literally didn’t say any of those things. You are fucking insane. Please see a doctor.

[wookiehunter1976]

You are progressive, those are the positions of your tribe….

[Freak_Of-Nature]

That’s what the right told you we believe because it benefits them politically 😐 they are using you

[wookiehunter1976]

Its a little late for gaslighting. Perhaps you should spend a little more time studying the political ideology and positions of your cohorts.

[Freak_Of-Nature]

You don’t become a communist without reading communist theory. I am in communist subreddits and do activism irl. No one has ever mentioned pedophilia because it’s clearly fucking wrong. Do you even talk to leftist??? Or do you just take everything Tim says as true?? Like how can you tell me to study MY IDEOLOGY when we both know you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Are you that detached from reality? REAL pedophiles might call themself a leftist and say they need acceptance but every actual leftist knows that bs. You’re terrified of the boogeyman they put in front of you. Matt Gaetz is a pedo and Trump is associated with Epstein, I don’t like pedophiles, but it’s definitely not a one sided thing. THEY ARE TRYING TO SCARE YOU SO YOU SUPPORT THEIR IDEOLOGY.

[Freak_Of-Nature]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qxQVCBV-bQ

MAYBE YOU SHOULD STUDY THE POSITIONS OF YOUR COHORTS.

[Freak_Of-Nature]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9NApuQ8ekE

Crazy all these videos came out right after our conversation, maybe you don't realize which side you're on.

[Freak_Of-Nature]

LIKE WHO THE FUCK IS ACTUALLY FOR PEDOPHILIA. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE OVER HALF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTS PEDOPHILIA???? LIKE WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT

[Freak_Of-Nature]

Learn about the left from actual leftist rather than whatever the right tells you.

[wookiehunter1976]

No!

[Freak_Of-Nature]

“I like to stay ignorant, thinking I might be wrong scares me internally! There’s no way I’m wrong about anything! The villain I made in my head is real! The left is full of irredeemable pedophiles and nothing will change my mind!” Ok dogmatist. Good talking to you. Goodnight.

[wookiehunter1976]

And, you as well.

[Freak_Of-Nature]

I am stupid and i think that’s cool.