• lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      17 days ago

      What’s the source of those images?

      Randomly posting images of text proves jack shit about anything.

        • bishbosh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          16 days ago

          Thank you for providing a source. I am not who you were replying too, but this exchange is a funny little microcosm of the conversation.

          I doubt many will read the full piece, I doubt many know Roderic Day, and the text shown was fully opinion. There were not detailed citations in the text that would require checking, this wasn’t a study, there is basically nothing to the point outside the text itself, except the notoriety of the author, but the knee-jerk reaction seems to be to ask for a source. Would it change their opinion if it was written in the comment itself? Does it make it more legitimate if had been a published book? What level publisher does it require to make the case meaningful? Would it suddenly be a worthwhile point if this was taken from a New York Times op-ed?

          To restate the point of the text, to a degree there is no reason to expect them to study the source of the quote, because they wield “Source?” like a club.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            16 days ago

            Yep, I agree, it was very strange. The essay segment is an explanation for why people hold the opinions they have and act the way they do, not a thorough examination of Xinjiang.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          16 days ago

          That’s fair.

          I guess they cancel each other out.