• lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 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
        ·
        9 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
          ·
          9 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
        ·
        9 days ago

        That’s fair.

        I guess they cancel each other out.