Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references.
I understand what you are saying, but this is a mainstream story, easily searchable with DDG from hints in the comment, covered by both Washington Post and New York Times as well as being splashed all over Business Insider, Mashable, The Verge, etc. etc.
This is not the comment to be fighting this battle with.
I agree with providing citations if the situation warrants it. This comment is an aside with a recent, topical, well covered and easily verifiable anecdote, a citation is not needed or warranted.
This is NOT the hill for citation fanatics to die on.
[edit] also another comment had already provided a citation, in fact the citation you provided, so you or I providing the citation was unnecessary so I don't understand your point
I wasn't agreeing with the original claim, though it's probably somewhat accurate, nor that this news item supports that claim. Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.
I agree, we're clearly not understanding each other perfectly, I think this phenomenon is all too common and it's worth some mild effort to investigate where things have gone wrong.
The original comment:
> Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references.
This request (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable.
This subsequent comment exchange:
>> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers.
> This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.
...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or value in) for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize misunderstanding.
And then here is where I see a problem arises:
> Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.
You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is required, but it is you that introduced the idea of it being a requirement into the conversation - which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could have).
Your subsequent reasoning:
> I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work
...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP for the new meaning of the sentence, doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, you are assuming I have a much more extreme view than I actually have. When I used the word required that didn’t mean I thought the original poster was ordering/demanding there be citations. When I tried to clarify that, you again misinterpreted my intent. And again now. At three misinterpretations it’s time to let it go. L
> you again misinterpreted my intent. And again now
Words have distinct (non-interchangeable) and broadly accepted meanings, independent of either intent or personal preferences for what the meaning should be. I have merely interpreted your words according to the broadly accepted meanings, have I not?
Upvoted because even though I knew the context of that comment, I consider it poor form to expect everyone else on a public forum to keep up with every bit of daily news.
