This is ridiculous Studies are always behind a paywall.
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
554 points (97.6% liked)
Comic Strips
20557 readers
2672 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thats why debate culture doesn't work. The truth is, the type on the right doesn't even care if they're wrong. You could give them a thousand things proving them wrong and they won't even read them.
You could convince a friend maybe but this requires a huge amount of trust and good faith on both sides.
However, ridicule does work because no one wants to join society's punching bag. An example of this would include foot binding in China where the upper classes sent their children off to foreign universities who mocked relentlessly for being from the foot binding country. I would recommend the book "the honor code: how moral revolutions happen" for more examples. It's a fantastic, easily accessible and short modern philosophy book by who I consider to be the greatest living philosopher (Kwame Anthony Appiah).
probing them wrong
Always ask for consent first though.
They don't ask first, why extend them the courtesy?
It’s comical how they are “facts over feelings” but would never read a study or consult with someone with actual expertise that isn’t working for a right wing think tank owned by a billionaire.
Ok... its a good story, but has anything like that ever actually happened beyond pretend narratives?
Gestures broadly at the US.
Realistically, people are sharing abstracts with one another and then citing their preferred, biased sources of information, whether it’s Al Jazeera, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, Democracy Now, The New York Times, etc.. In practice, this means relying mostly on secondary sources, with primary studies cherry-picked to support whatever point they are trying to make.
I've read 12 pages of a study only for the other person to say cool story bro and move on to the next point. This happened more than once, so I no longer think that don't things the right way is the best way to go about it. 😅
Worse yet, you read their article, and it doesn't actually support their argument at all. The headline just kind of vaguely implies support.
Reading the article is for libtards, the headline is all I need!
This makes me so glad that Lemmy exists. Not only is it a great Reddit alternative, but there are infinitely more real and reasonable people here.
Nobody knows everything and we've all been exposed to propaganda at some point. It's fantastic that there's a place online where we can hold civil discussions and nicely fact check each other.
I've been fact checked a few times and it was great. On reddit it would have just been insults or propaganda from the other side. Let's keep this going! ❤️
I've still had some people correct me in nasty ways, and even be incorrect in their call outs. Not quite as often as Reddit, but it's certainly far from rare here.
Lemmy is like Reddit pretty much. No idea where you see such a difference.
Luigi Mangione is a hero
Billionaires should all drop dead.
There was a thread about this not long ago.
A MAGat posted a meme of a riot and claimed it was in Portland.
People pointed out that the picture was actually a Right wing riot in a different place.
The MAGat responded that it didn't matter, because it was a meme, not intended to be taken factually.
Yeah. This is something I keep realizing.
So many people simply seek to 'support' their tribe/idols. Scientific debate isn't the point; loyalty and conformity is.
It’s a feature of a lot of religious culture. And, in an oddly similar way, influencer culture.
And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it unless there's a really huge personal connection/issue.
These are the people that seek things "to have their ears tickled" instead of ingesting the truth of the matter.
"Yes but it could be true! That's the point!!"
“Here’s a link to a ChatGPT-generated article on why horses are actually reptiles”
There are many reasons why horses are legally reptiles including egg laying, accounting, and sun bathing. If you want I can make an anime drawing of a horse lizard.
As soon as I see someone start a sentence with: "So I asked ChatGPT," I know I can basically disregard whatever it is they're about to say.
I though the whole thing was just a meme, but literally I was arguing with a mate of mine about the state of piracy in my contry and whether or not it was illegal to consume pirated media.
I searched found a post on reddit which linked me to one of my country laws official documents. I showed him the document and phrasing on the law that clearly stated it was only illegal to share/profit from pirated content.
My guy just hited me with "yeah, yeah . . . now ask chatgpt".
Fortunately it agreed with the current law, but like what the hell the I just showed u the official thing.
You can do that long before that. Just don't engage.
It's so much easier to spread misinformation than truth. Just imagine the time investing vetting the studies to share in the response.
Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and then strut around like it won anyway
Comparing idiots (and by necessary extension, fucking conservatives) to pigeons is tremendous insult to pigeons. Pigeons are smart. If I’m playing chess with any avian, winning against the bird was never the point lol, not even a consideration. I’m no ornithologist, and so don’t seek to play serious games with avians any more than I feel the need to seriously rebut a fucking conservative.
They may be smart birds, but they're about as good at chess as the average conservative is at intellectual debate
Given the two, I’d debate a pigeon before a fucking conservative. After all, the former is a bird, but the latter is just fucking stupid.
Hell, the former can fuck you up with large numbers and so can the latter, but at least pigeons are useful.
I bet you feel pretty foolish now.
Yes, but not for the reasons you think.
(btw, this is the first time I'm seeing someone copying xkcd's absence of style)
The real problem is that "actual scientific journal" 's quality control is shit too.
There are no actually real standards on how to write a paper, or which citation style to use. Sources aren't hyperlinked, if the source isn't machine readable or just a book, that's just an "eh, oopsie, go read it then". There are no automatic setups that check for AI use, corruption and "cooperation" between companies or other "public benefit organizations", study conducting bodies and potentially favorable outcomes.
If you look at any research institute or university, they will brag front and center about who much tradition they have, but they're real quiet about how many studies they're publishing and how many of them get reproduced. And don't get me started on the whole publishing industry that somehow everyone has to pay into for everything and the people and institutions that actually do the work don't see a dollar of the profits that those companies rake in.
That doesn't mean that there aren't relatively even worse sources. That is definitely the case. But it's very much not a "just believe the scientists" either.
Way too serious rant for a comic over.
I mean, it's a very large dependency on which journals, how well cited they are etc...
I mean yes there's absolutely problems, but it doesn't make much sense when we are comparing to basically completely unsourced arguements from complete and total laymen. That's basically in the category of calling out Obama did some unethical things as president... in a discussion about trump. Yes 100% agreed with the premise, but also have to say they aren't even in the same league.
I'm happy someone is pointing this out. There is so much trash out there that is just maximised for "citation count" because that's how you get recognition in academia.
One more thing for folks who don't know: peer reviewed doesn't always mean someone actually verified shit, let alone read it all.
I'm not saying don't believe scientists or that the whole research field is a hoax, I just am severely disappointed in the broader scientific community.
view more: next ›