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.
I've tried posting about ways to be discerning in the past--it doesn't typically fly well here. I'd love it if the standards here were the same as for a college course: sources cited, comments in third person, only comments which contribute to the conversation.
This is what we have, though. Frens are descending to this site from all walks of life.
For what it's worth, while I didn't even check out the Twitter link OP posted, Dom Lucre has been spitting hard truth for a while now. He has only garnered community notes a couple of times. Make a community note, perhaps.
It's really worrisome that there's such a backlash against someone wanting to see something more credible than "this person on Twitter says so", especially when the topics are typically something like this, the potential murder of a political rival. And I'm talking about your efforts not flying well. Not about anyone questioning my source here.
And it's even more important when new people are coming here. If their first impression is that so many people here will believe pretty much anything, what does that say about Q?
I'm still pretty new to all this myself and stuff like this really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. Lots of stuff I see here I believe to be true. But that's because I worked hard to find info on it myself.
But there is also a lot of just flat out crap that should never be posted in the first place.
You talked earlier about the NYT being known liars and suggested that they should never be believed because of that. I don't think this forum is very different. Reputation is important, I think.
You make a great point with your last paragraph. So much so that I have to admit that I DO NOT direct people to this site, and I've never thought about why, but your point is the exact reason. To stay here requires an insane amount of sifting through dirt to find the gold. More than half of that gold then turns out to be iron pyrite.
The difference between the NYT and here, however, is that the readers of the NYT are consumers and the readers of this board are producers. To finish the metaphor, perhaps what you are desiring is a board that also decomposes the lies--like snopes, but honest.
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.
I've tried posting about ways to be discerning in the past--it doesn't typically fly well here. I'd love it if the standards here were the same as for a college course: sources cited, comments in third person, only comments which contribute to the conversation.
This is what we have, though. Frens are descending to this site from all walks of life.
For what it's worth, while I didn't even check out the Twitter link OP posted, Dom Lucre has been spitting hard truth for a while now. He has only garnered community notes a couple of times. Make a community note, perhaps.
It's really worrisome that there's such a backlash against someone wanting to see something more credible than "this person on Twitter says so", especially when the topics are typically something like this, the potential murder of a political rival. And I'm talking about your efforts not flying well. Not about anyone questioning my source here.
And it's even more important when new people are coming here. If their first impression is that so many people here will believe pretty much anything, what does that say about Q?
I'm still pretty new to all this myself and stuff like this really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. Lots of stuff I see here I believe to be true. But that's because I worked hard to find info on it myself.
But there is also a lot of just flat out crap that should never be posted in the first place.
You talked earlier about the NYT being known liars and suggested that they should never be believed because of that. I don't think this forum is very different. Reputation is important, I think.
You make a great point with your last paragraph. So much so that I have to admit that I DO NOT direct people to this site, and I've never thought about why, but your point is the exact reason. To stay here requires an insane amount of sifting through dirt to find the gold. More than half of that gold then turns out to be iron pyrite.
The difference between the NYT and here, however, is that the readers of the NYT are consumers and the readers of this board are producers. To finish the metaphor, perhaps what you are desiring is a board that also decomposes the lies--like snopes, but honest.