You're viewing a single thread.
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it's own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It's page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I've easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Let it go. Move on to those more receptive.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is "winning" as soon as it's asked
Twitter is bad.
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
The hero we deserve.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Unless it's common knowledge or easily sourced.
no. support your claims
Common knowledge You don’t have to back up absolutely everything you say with evidence (or you’d soon run out of wordcount to advance your own point properly!). Some things are common knowledge. That could mean that a fact is just generally known by everyone, and not disputed or in doubt. This could include:
•facts such as London is the capital of the United Kingdom •well documented dates such as the start of the First World War in 1914 •H20 being the chemical formula for water •things which everyone knows from their lived experience, such as the sky is blue.
Edited for formatting
those examples I could accept but I think a lot of people use imparted wisdom as "common knowledge" and we should drill down on any claim that is disputed.
Prove it.
you see that you just did, right? it's tautological.
Lets not forget that it's about more than just that person. It's about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Aka, "Why Don't You Respond to Criticism?"
It all boils down to bad faith. They don't care what argument you make, you'll never sway them. They're not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you're finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they've already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
Ding ding ding. I actively refuse to do homework from randos on the internet.
I remember when one conservative parent was absolutely furious with GW Bush over invading Iraq. Then they were all in MAGA for nine years. They've finally disavowed that one, but I don't know how much time they have to come further left, or how the trajectory may shift. We actually had a pleasant few days together, with each of us clenching our teeth and walking away a few times, but that's any relationship. Some things we (everyone) feel strongly about really aren't worth that argument. In fact, a lot of them.
I bet they saw the source and said "oh, yes, thank you for the source, I have updated my opinion based on this new information."