There’s no reasonable way for a single person to point out every single flaw in a conspiratorial website. The whole article is a gish-gallop; so much misinformation that even if I disproved 90% of the primary points, people would still latch on to the 10% that I hadn’t had time to disprove, and say, see?, they were right! (That’s assuming that they even accept counterclaims as being sufficient in the first place.)
Paying attention to your sources and not using bad ones is one of the first, most basic principles of media literacy. Failing to adhere to this basic principle is precisely how you get Q-anon.
How about disprove just one thing? Can you handle that?
Wild that you’re attempting to speak with authority, when you’re the one being most vague and refusing to provide an ounce of material to support your argument.
I don’t have to. It’s a shitty source that’s making extraordinary claims, so it’s on them to provide the extraordinary proof.
I could make any number of bullshit claims, like, say, Nazis built a moon base shortly before the end of WWII, and the inability of the allies to find Hitler’s body proves that he didn’t commit suicide in a bunker in Berlin, and you would quite rightly insist that I give you a lot of solid evidence. The article does none of that.
When you can’t disprove the content, attack the source.
There’s no reasonable way for a single person to point out every single flaw in a conspiratorial website. The whole article is a gish-gallop; so much misinformation that even if I disproved 90% of the primary points, people would still latch on to the 10% that I hadn’t had time to disprove, and say, see?, they were right! (That’s assuming that they even accept counterclaims as being sufficient in the first place.)
Paying attention to your sources and not using bad ones is one of the first, most basic principles of media literacy. Failing to adhere to this basic principle is precisely how you get Q-anon.
How about disprove just one thing? Can you handle that?
Wild that you’re attempting to speak with authority, when you’re the one being most vague and refusing to provide an ounce of material to support your argument.
I don’t have to. It’s a shitty source that’s making extraordinary claims, so it’s on them to provide the extraordinary proof.
I could make any number of bullshit claims, like, say, Nazis built a moon base shortly before the end of WWII, and the inability of the allies to find Hitler’s body proves that he didn’t commit suicide in a bunker in Berlin, and you would quite rightly insist that I give you a lot of solid evidence. The article does none of that.
Did you actually read it? There’s links throughout.
How is them pointing out the work history of the government staff installed on this an “extraordinary claim”?