And the Lesson we see here is : "Crazy- people-online belive all sorts of stuff , they should not be takeen to seriously , because they fundamentaly are NOT serious.
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.
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.
And the Lesson we see here is : "Crazy- people-online belive all sorts of stuff , they should not be takeen to seriously , because they fundamentaly are NOT serious.
hey, believe what you want.
The Bee does waste to much time , trying to explain to the Fly ; that Flowers are better then Shit.
You should try believing what’s verifiably true
Nah, you don’t seem to be having much fun with it
I’m having a blast! I’m providing simple sources and facts. I’m kind of in my element.
Simple yes, facts lol no you aren’t
Hold up everybody, before judging bitofarambler, try walking a mile in their shoes.
deleted by creator
Randomly posting images of a prison proves jack shit about anything.
deleted by creator
The text is from Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” by Roderic Day.
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.
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.