Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
You know as well as I do that I don't have a shot in hell of becoming a mod here.
Why can't I encourage people to aim higher when I see examples like this?
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks an "elite research site" like this shouldn't be using Twitter posts as evidence.
Perhaps if the Twitter post above had some compelling evidence like copies of JFK Jrs documentation for running in the DNC for Senate, that might be something. But no, it's just some random person saying it.
Perhaps we should all be striving for self improvement and encouraging others to be better as well.
Because this is just sad. You know, for an elite research site.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
Calm down, fren. The truth will out.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
It's ridiculous.
Become a mod. Raise the bar.
You know as well as I do that I don't have a shot in hell of becoming a mod here.
Why can't I encourage people to aim higher when I see examples like this?
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks an "elite research site" like this shouldn't be using Twitter posts as evidence.
Perhaps if the Twitter post above had some compelling evidence like copies of JFK Jrs documentation for running in the DNC for Senate, that might be something. But no, it's just some random person saying it.
Perhaps we should all be striving for self improvement and encouraging others to be better as well.
Because this is just sad. You know, for an elite research site.