Why are leftists so obsessed with sources?

Even if you do show them your sources they'll they won't accept it because some academia jew or the person who made the study implied that he believes that there are only two genders 10 years ago and is now cancelled.
I don't even bother anymore 100 percent of the time they just want to waste your time.

They're genuinely too dumb to use logic and make connections so their opinions have to be dictated by authority figures

They don't actually care about a source, they just want to waste your time and then not reply to you.
Source shit if you want, but never respond to a request for something that can be sourced by anyone with fingers and working internet.

Without them, your argument is usually spurious. Academia and media spent the better part of a century establishing credibility in order to realize better truth, but the process was coopted by money and government in order to better control the masses. Without sources the talking head on the TV telling you that you need a Covid vaccine or that 9 out of 10 dentists prefer Colgate to other brands of toothpaste might not be taken seriously. It's one of the reasons that TPTB were so afraid of the internet. They couldn't control it like they could traditional information outlets.

Attached: 1566824072832.jpg (300x300, 24.57K)

why is your mother cheating on your dad?

Because they have autism and no kraftwerks

People always like to dismiss the political biases of the modern scientific method and how sources are gathered. Ironically university (at least on the surface) tell students to be aware of this but "peer reviewed" literally just means they got people of a similar mind (often friends) to back up their claim by saying they believe it has value.

On top of that you also have to remember where the funding/motivation for the research is coming from i.e. Is it a private company, government grants or self-funded.

A prime example of this would be the issue with research into fossil fuels and climate change. On one side you had mining companies which funded research that supported them + their buddies like Murdoch burying global warming stories and promoting only studies that supported them. Then you had people like Gore who made wild claims well outside the realm or reason just to get people's attention to real but none the less no where near as extreme issues like global warming (he was primarily self-funded and made a killing).

>Without them, your argument is usually spurious.
Source please.

God revealed it to me in a dream.

Because they know acid head commie boomers all occupy high positions in academia.

How else could governments get the OK to issue grade schoolers tranny hormones? Look at the creature in charge of the department of health.

Attached: 1647789315514.jpg (500x271, 37.05K)

A baseless assertion. An unfounded claim. No doubt a bizarre rant will follow.

Right Claim: People in poor countries are violent.
Leftist response: You are a bigot, and you are wrong, studies show that it only affects small areas, and the right blows it out of proportions.
>Leftist goes and gets killed in poor country trying to prove their own point.
Somehow the Right is still wrong.

Attached: liberal hubris.jpg (4500x3161, 3.63M)

They are deeply intellectually insecure.

And the problem is authoritative sources derive all their money from the authority. How would studies get funded if the researchers published negative results for the people that pay the bills? Not to mention, people who disagree with the narrative have their lives ruined. Authoritative sources don't have much real value because they've become another organ of the establishment. Expecting scientists paid by lobbyist groups to tell you about reality is like expecting a priest to tell you the meaning of life.

It's appeal to authority but their authority is the new God, thus infallible.

>intellect
Because they have a lack thereof.

Only those who are experts will be able to discuss things and only those who can influence them will be able to control what they discuss. That is our present and increasingly our future.

That one is pasta.

I'm not asking you to believe me though. If you don't want to accept my claim, you don't have to. I don't give a fuck. I'm not going to cancel your Twitter account or anything.

Attached: 1580790871438.jpg (377x348, 41.17K)

The human mind is a frail and mostly broken thing these days, it cannot handle more than 100 or so relationships and when normies are packed into cities then they break their minds and need to have a singular authority to rule their lives, so they seek for an impossible unity to force all to conform onto and the pursuit of an impossible goal becomes their lives and culture.

Yes, I have a degree in that field. No, you can't see it.

Attached: e3c1b26f-bc6c-48f2-858e-95f1139c0a67.jpg (271x254, 8.61K)

because if you made it up then it's worthless and your integrity is shot.
if you have a source then you didn't make it up. also, the point of sources is to evaluate the process which achieved the conclusion. nobody ever values a source which just repeats your assertion, that was never the point and if that's all you thought the point was, then you are stupid; which you are.

Ok but correlation does not equal causation.

>bizarre rant
Like clockwork.

>Why are leftists so obsessed with sources?
Because leftists have to deflect attention from the fact that they themselves argue disingenuously

There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for sources, but I always make an effort to reference completely contradictory sources whenever i'm researching anything.

Everyone has different ideological and financial motivations for their points of view, I don't much care which is "right", I just want to know what the fuck is going on.

>if you have a source then you didn't make it up.
There's an origin for every data point though. Someone had to make something up somewhere along the line.

b/c they're too retarded to look it up themselves and make an unbiased opinion based on that research.

They only trust authorities.
>In that case they should have no problem proving their statements.
Correct. But lefties are not persuaded by reason. Only by authority.

Attached: the only graph.jpg (931x960, 72.52K)

Retarded people don't know what proof is, so they ask for a source.

Does that constitute a rant to you? Weird.

>More gibberish

Attached: 1648307239363.png (636x628, 567.68K)

Because it gives them illusion of superiority because someone who calls himself a scientists has the same opinion therefore making it correct in their mind and your opinion is less valid. People are selfish and smug, they are just using politics as excuse to flex on others.

>idiology
Underrated.

OP trying to push this "only leftists use sources" psyop again

Because when you say something outlandishly retarded and present it as absolute truth people will want to know why you think that. Schizophrenic people putting piece as to her there in their mind does not represent reality.

fpbp

:PepoG

>appeal to authority
Bingo!
This is what Critical Thinking was supposed to teach, and thus now why Critical Thinking has been neutered to teach that authority is not to be discredited. I am talking about the general high school course called Critical Thinking some newfags took, myself included, during the 2010s.
They did teach us about the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, but spent the rest of the course telling us why we need to always reference to an authoritative source if we want to be considered 'legit'. It was literally, subliminally teaching that eye-witness, anecdotal stories, and even evidence-supported individual accounts, should not be taken seriously in face of words backed by (((publishing))).

Attached: 1.png (860x444, 336.92K)

The moment you show source, they will literally, nonchalantly ignore it and will proceed with an ad hominem.
They even contradict themselves just to not discuss the source they themselves asked for. You know how many times I've been called a wetback by a leftard here? It's like they forget which ideology they're following and everything is about ignoring the subject they themselves started.
Pathological to say the least.

do you have a source for this image?
-

let's dissect this.

this has already been fact-checked.

where even is your source for this image?

DEBUNKED

> Americans have cocks twice as fat as as anyone else on the planet. Deal with it, it's the truth, everyone knows it.
> What you want a source fir that? You're saying you don't trust my claim that I have a massive dong twice the size of anyone else? You must be a faggot leftist obsessed with muh sources.

Attached: 89a306717bf0119eb208ac310d8fcd42.jpg (474x475, 53.13K)

Sources beyond primary sources aren't real anymore. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it is all shit. I have done a good amount of academic research. I can say without a doubt that you should trust very little academic sources. Major research in psychology, sociology, physics, anthropology, archeology, economics, and plenty of other topics has been proven to be made up. Even the fda allows studies that don't fit the hypothesis to be disregarded. Look up meta-analysis on antidepressant studies by pharmaceutical companies if you don't believe me. The media is just as guilty. They use the same tactics. Political polls fuck with their samples all the time. Literally all of them do it. All of this is done to make money and allow delusional people to project their delusions to the world. The kikes want you deluded.

Attached: 1644811387965.jpg (720x479, 80.05K)

because they can censor any source/research who disagrees or exposes them.
it's a game you can't win, just call them trannies and tell them to join 41%

Attached: courtier.png (1168x285, 58.8K)

Blue is based

This

Ahahaha all the left wing cock sucks that think appeals to authority mean they are right.

WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?

LETS DISSECT THIS.

"Prove" and "providing links to articles misrepresenting studies which are invalid anyway" are not the same thing.

You just pay some kike to peer review your article and BOOM! you have a source.

Because they lie all the time and therefore think everyone else does too

If they had common sense and pattern recognition they wouldn't be leftists.

because Any Forums is gullible and will believe anything

Attached: 1583409611726.png (696x933, 87.68K)

Attached: 1646615329325.jpg (540x578, 39.69K)

It's a journalism convention that they have mistaken for a scientific one.
Sources aren't proof, they are an appeal to authority. Methodology (empirical) and derivation (deductive) are what actually matter. A source can be a pointer to one of these, but it is of no value in and of itself. There is literally no difference, from a scientific perspective, between citing an anonymous or pseudonymous publication (bourbaki, bitcoin protocol, T-test, T-distribution, etc) and citing posts on Any Forums. There is a difference from a journalistic perspective, since there is no repeatable experiment (empirical) or derivation (deductive) to act as a natural authority, so journalists must elevate individuals or organizations to the position of authority instead.

There are already mathematicians citing /sci/ for shit that appears to have originated there:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,_or_the_Haruhi_problem
>In September 2011, an anonymous poster on the Science & Math ("/sci/") board of Any Forums proved that the smallest superpermutation on n symbols (n ≥ 2) has at least length n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + n − 3, In reference to the Japanese anime series The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya

ET TU??

NO SOURCE?

ET TUUUUUUUUUU

AAAAAAAAAHHHH

it implies causation.