CITE YOUR SOURCES!

FreddyDeus · 2010-12-24T12:01:13+00:00

Unfortunately, the debate isn't just about quantifiable statistics, but also personal experience and observation. When someone demands constantly that you cite your sources, often they are not asking you to convince them with evidence, but rather use the phrase to conveniently dismiss your argument.

They have the internet at their disposal if they really wanted to trace what evidence there might be.

NiceGuysSTFU · 2010-12-24T16:45:00+00:00

I've got no problem citing sources, I just wonder why this is being trotted out so often by the feminists in this reddit.

Apparently you do. I ask for sources when a broad claim is based upon some alleged source(s) that the person making the claim fails to provided. If one is correct, one should not take exception to providing verifiable citations.

aetheralloy · 2010-12-24T22:45:37+00:00

There are two sides to this coin.

"Sources please?" is valid when someone says something like "51.3% of property is now controlled by women"

"Cite your sources!" can also be used as a debate troll/smokebomb though. As in "Cite your sources!" when someone say something like "some women engage in cuckoldry"

mean0dean0 · 2010-12-26T03:28:03+00:00

Citing sources is only one level of understanding--interpreting those sources is entirely another. Data says nothing, in and of itself--it's how the data gets filtered that makes the message.

ignatiusloyola · 2010-12-24T13:52:30+00:00

It depends - do we want quantifiable data or qualifiable data?

In a scientific society, quantifiable data is necessary to prove a point. It is classically known as the Problem of Induction. Generally, quantified data uses some base assumptions and gives both a result and the certainty of that result in statistical terms.

No study can test every single person, and so the statistical analysis is important. Plus, a proper study will cite how the data was collected, which can be a valid source of criticism for the study.

Take, for example, the classic 1 in 3 study for women facing rape. People fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. But when Hoff Sommers dug deep and found the original study, she found out that the questions used were very vague and many of the participants themselves didn't even feel they were "raped" even though they were counted as being "raped".

Anecdotes aren't what you think they are. This is a very ideological site, and so of course reading the series of anecdotes here will make you believe that some things are more overwhelmingly common than they necessarily are. A proper study gives us an actual assessment of the commonality of the problems.

The thing that I find funny is how often the demagogues on this site use shaming language, and try to call people who disagree with them "feminists". Calling for citable sources is not a "feminist" tactic, it is an intellectual tactic. It is an attempt to legitimize the movement, not demean it.

Anecdotes have their place, but their place is demagoguery.

MasterBastard · 2010-12-24T15:47:33+00:00

I've got no problem citing sources, I just wonder why this is being trotted out so often by the feminists in this reddit.

I think you do have a problem citing sources:

"Matriarchy is a wild environment where everyone suffers. The US and the UK are living in societies that are closer to matriarchy than patriarchy in the west right now. Do you really think this situation can last another 50 years? your out of your mind. Not only are matriarchys violent, but they dont progress."

"Well Germany at the time of the Nazi rise, observed the British and its trade routes around the world and thought 'we would like that for ourselves', and so via a small group of mad, power-hungry men, the figurehead being Hitler, and the women of Germany sent their men out across europe to get it."

"And again, I repeat, The US and the UK are feminized states."

"80%=ALL." - I would love to see the source to back this one up.

I know it may seem odd that I've dredged up all these comments, but I was so baffled by them that I wanted to see how you further explained yourself. With sources maybe.

EDIT: to put in those little " marks.

brauhze · 2010-12-24T20:00:31+00:00

SITE YOUR COURSES!

2010-12-24T23:24:21+00:00

[citation] - Anyone

YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF CONTEXT!! - <insert member of group claiming oppression>

XFDRaven · 2010-12-25T04:16:31+00:00

This thread needs a procedure for identifying relevant sources. Some people cite a law, it gets dismissed as irrelevant as a source. Others cite cite blogs, which are actually worthless sources. /MR should figure out what a standard should be for sources and then include a method for researching based on a given argument.

Realistically, since most fundamental arguments are redundant due to random sewage leaking in here, once usable sources are identified they can be copy-pasta'd all day long.

ignatiusloyola · 2010-12-24T17:00:48+00:00

Another way of looking at it is this:

An anecdote means "it happens".

A statistical study means "how often it happens".

The statistical study supersedes the anecdote, and the anecdote is limited to only stating that it happens without any reference to how often it happens.

klooisafag · 2010-12-25T00:30:19+00:00

This is the same thing wikipedia members do, and the reason I won't support wikipedia. They just enforce the status quo, and even when studies do show the truth, they say there aren't enough studies yet.

And yes, people like you and I, who can see through the bullshit and determine the truth of a lot of things with a minimum of required evidence, are few and far between. Most of the people in this Reddit have the minds of children, cannot read between the lines, and are really nothing but white knights or feminists who were exposed to some aspect of misandry in their personal lives they simply could not ignore.

The sad thing is, most people are sheep. And even most people here, who claim to support men's rights, are still sheep. They still only see a small section of reality. They still only believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence staring them in the face and the obviousness of the truth.

This is why the greatest minds in the MRM rarely venture here, and if they do, it is only to link their articles to get more awareness and exposure. This is because the real thinkers of the MRM get attacked by the mental wimps that reside here, shunned or banned or downvoted into oblivion by the misinformed, and genuinely intelligent discussion is rare.

There are only a few MRAs worth a shit who still come here, and those that do are either trying to get more exposure to their sites or are still hoping that the masses can embrace the reality of things and can actually one day be convinced. Sadly, this will never happen. People are stupid and they will not learn, no matter how much you try to convince them. It is a waste of time to bother here.

If I were you I'd devote energy to sites like avoiceformen, the spearhead, and your own website, and use Reddit merely as a tool to expose people to them.

Be warned, however, that the moderators here do not appreciate people or websites that expose the truth of things. And they have no qualms about censoring the real MRAs while letting the white knights and feminists roam free. You can see that clearly in the responses and down-voting of ignatiusloyola and his entourage within this thread. kloo2yoo is nothing but an inconsistent child and ignatiusloyola is his mommy.

Awaiting my ban for stating the truth :/.

2010-12-24T20:04:23+00:00

What the fuck does it mean when they say check your privilige?

Title	CITE YOUR SOURCES!
Author	AntiFeministMedia
Upvotes	10
Comments	58
Date	December 24, 2010 11:23 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/eqvy0/cite_your_sources/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cite-your-sources.1044981 https://theredarchive.com/post/1044981

Comments