What he’s saying isn’t the problem, it’s that he’s refusing to provide cites for anything, and he’s doing in forums that demand them.
Just like how you asked for cites multiple times in this thread (in the form of quoting his posts). Granted this is the pit so no one has to do that for you, but in P&E, you can’t make claims without cites.
I went back to the thread you’re referencing and checked what I’d posted. I originally wrote:
“Of those posters, there are a couple who habitually do almost nothing else [but post snark], no matter what thread they’re in. They’re maladjusted wastes of space, and magellan01 is worth a thousand of them”
I was only referring to a couple of specific posters. One of those posters was Chingon, who has since been banned, who was a miserable sack of shit who wasn’t worth the steam off a child molester’s piss, and who was far more of a troll than Gobb seems to be, so I stand by that assessment. The other poster I was referring to (unfortunately) hasn’t been banned yet so I won’t mention him.
Those were the only posters I was referring to. I wasn’t referring to you or anyone else in this thread.
Here’s the quotes. All of these are in P&E.
Paramilitary groups tend to be conservative-leaning. That is not something that needs to be cited. Vibes, optics alone should tell you that.
You should know that police and military are right-leaning. That has been the norm since the 50s. This is common knowledge
There does not need to be citations on that. Most athletes are MAGA.
Most athletes are very MAGA. People should know that.
I agree it’s nice to provide cites when asked, but do we really need a cite for the claim that cops, soldiers and militias tend to be right leaning? I mean, Gobb’s right. That is common knowledge. You can argue (often justifiably) that refusing to provide cites is a sign of bad faith, but so is demanding cites for the absolute bleeding obvious.
The claim about athletes is different, IMO. I don’t think that’s common knowledge in the same way his claims about cops and soldiers were.
In GD and P&E (which follows the same basic rules), yes, we really do need cites when requested. Hell, we often ask for cites over there for things that we hope to be accurate.
If he were truly a brand-new poster, and not familiar with board rules and culture, then a mod note – “cites are expected for claims like that in this forum” – would certainly be appropriate, at least once. He then proceeded to argue with the mod who told him that, and continued with the same behavior.
Magic 8-Ball says “Trock.”
Why do you get to make those decisions? Where are you drawing the line?
Also, when taken in context, it wasn’t that he refused to cite something that he feels is common knowledge, it was a pattern of doing it (and a pattern of disregarding mod directions as well).
Cops and soldiers tend to be right-wing? That seems like begging the question. Sure, cops and soldiers tend to align with ideologies that favour cops and soldiers, but is that what totally defines “right wing” in today’s political climate? Might there not be many who are actual patriots, believers in the Constitution and the rule of law, who are disgusted by the violations of all those rights and norms and the rampant corruption by the current gang of thugs occupying the highest political offices? US military leadership certainly seemed markedly unimpressed by the Trump and Hegseth dog and pony show, which turned the concept of military honour into a farcical unintended parody.
This is why we need cites:
Opinions change, then change back, and change again.
Like actual knowledge, perhaps?
I can’t draw a bright dividing line between claims that definitely do require cites and claims that definitely don’t, but surely the claim that cops and soldiers tend to be right leaning falls in the “don’t” category. It’s just one of those things that everyone knows, same as “People in big cities tend to lean liberal” or “Candidates tend to move to the center after winning their primaries”. I mean, am I crazy? Don’t we all just know that soldiers tend to vote Republican?
You tell us.
It doesn’t matter what we just “know”, cites still matter, like the one that I posted a couple of posts back.
In P&E, you’d absolutely have to cite every one of those claims.
ETA, and to be very clear, I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I’m only saying that you’d have to back it up if you want to have a decent discussion.
Truly. Stupid’s forever but ignorance can be fixed – except willful ignorance. Then you’re getting into teaching a pig to sing territory.
And here’s the thing about backing statements up with cites: You also need to state the limits of your knowledge. Not just give a cite but where possible assess its reliability, and include that assessment in your post if appropriate. For example, stating that so-and-so said such-and-such and I learned it from the Washington Post in a news article gives your readers information from which to judge how much credibility to give to the statement itself and the reliability of the source in getting the quote accurately, as opposed to taking the same quote from, say, the Washington Times.
You can (I have, anyway) say I believe I read this in a news article/heard it on the radio, but can’t recall where and can’t vouch for its accuracy, but it seems reasonable given what we do know, based on such-and-such. That tells the reader how much weight (if any) to give to the statement, based in part on the person posting’s reputation in general. But just flatly stating such-and-such is true without more, as Gobb was doing, isn’t acceptable.
Yeah, but I’d question whether that’s an issue of trolling or an issue that he freaked out, when he started to get some serious answers that didn’t match what he’d been told would be the response he’d expect. People say some crazy shit when they panic.
Cite, please?
(Yes, I know we’re in the Pit. I’m not really expecting one.)
And, even if true, it’s irrelevant.
Oh, good grief. “Everyone knows” lots of things that ain’t so.
It’s if anything more important to check cites on something you think is common knowledge; because the more you think it’s common knowledge the less likely you are to have actually thought about it.
Good points @thorny_locust .
I frequently see the “everyone knows” argument on a predominantly right-wing message board that I look in on from time to time. Somebody posts something obviously wrong, claiming that “everyone knows” it to be true. Example:
Poster A: “Everyone knows that the moon is made of green cheese.”
Poster B: “Got a cite for that?”
Poster A: “I don’t need one. Everyone knows that.”
Thankfully, that doesn’t work here.
(Aside: Was anybody else confused by Gobb’s use of the word, “paramilitary”? At first, I was, because I thought he was referring to groups like the Proud Boys.)
I believe that his definition for the word is something along the lines of “A rigidly-hierarchically-organized killing machine that favors straight MAGA men of a caucasian persuasion” or something similar.
Yes, especially when he then said he was including fire departments in that group.
I had the same reaction to that as I did when in the original Red Dawn movie, the Boy Scouts were described as an “elite paramilitary organization.”