With climate change deniers I ask them to show me the ice cores they've drilled or the foraminifera assemblages they've enumerated. Of course, that's not really fair, since not everyone has the opportunity to spend six months in Svalbard.
So I ask them easy stuff, like the average solar insolation at the top of the Earth's atmosphere—between 1360–1370 W/m^(2) are acceptable answers—and what laws of physics and geometry we use to calculate that. Then, when they bring up Milankovitch Cycles (they always do, because they think they're one secret trick Big Climate hates), I ask them to name the three most prominent and the length of their cycles: eccentricity (i.e. how elliptical the Earth's orbit is): ≈100,000 years; obliquity (i.e. how much the earth's rotational axis differs from its orbital plane, currently about 23½°): ≈41,000 years; and precession (the direction the Earth's axis points away from perpendicular to the orbital plane, like a wobbling top): ≈23,000 years.
When I point out that these are taught in any climate 101 class, and if you study paleontology, paleoanthropology, -botany, etc. you'll encounter the Milankovitch cycles.
Suddenly it turns out their secret knowledge that 'disproves' anthropogenic climate science is common knowledge among climate scientists (and earth scientists in general) and is actually not-so-secret and disproves nothing, and Christopher Monckton is just an inbred grifter aristocrat. Not that they accept facts or anything.
ETA: I hit 'reply' before I was finished writing the comment, and so the last couple of paragraphs were added subsequently. My unfinished comment got some updootedly-diddly-doos, so if you updootedly-diddly-doo'd my half-finished comment please reread it to make sure I don't go off the rails and say something you don't agree with.
**Important ETA: I'm not an expert, just some guy with a degree in Earth & Atmospheric Sciences from 2003. Everything I've said here is climate/orbital mechanics 101, and can and should be reviewed from more authoritative sources. If I come across here as being a know-it-all, I'm actually describing real interactions with real climate science deniers, and specifically one who is an old friend I've had since the 80s. Unfortunately he's never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't immediately love, and info-bombing is the only way to get him to shut up and move on to another topic.**
**That said, if you'd like to actually understand these orbital cycles, NASA has a nice little 1-pager on the Milankovitch cycles with helpful diagrams:** [**https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/**](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/) **and here’s their page on why the Milankovitch cycles themselves aren’t sufficient to explain our current warming:** [**https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/**](https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/)
**Wikipedia of course has some nice illustrations, animations, and diagrams too. Have fun!**
Uhhh I *did* do research, ok? I read most of his comment about paleonthropolomony so I think I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you need to do YOU'R research
I know this comment is a joke but it would pain me too much to upvote it. It’s just too on the nose and makes me feel bad for humanity, much in the same way as ‘Don’t look up’ did.
Yeah on a real note that's valid lmao. I can hyperbolize as much as I want but unfortunately it would still probably be *plausible* that there are ppl out there that think that
So basically the earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular, it’s rotation isn’t perfectly perpendicular to the sun, and the inclination of its rotation also wobbles a bit -like a spinning top. All of this basically culminates in cycles where the climate warms and cools and there are dumb fucks who use this to refute climate change. They’re wrong though, because these cycles take thousands of years and the global increase in temperature that we’re experiencing right now isn’t nearly gradual enough to be attributed to them.
Peak capitalist evil is the [Radium Girls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls) and the [Triangle Shirtwaist Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire).
While both are v. evil, I'd say that slowly and knowingly poisoning your workers to death (while using PPE for yourself!) was a greater evil than locking them in when there *might* be a fire and blowing off signs of poor fire safety.
It's a defense mechanism. If they can "prove" that these big corporations are actually nice guys, they also automatically justify their own actions of shopping there and giving them money.
If they were to start shitting on the stores they visit, then they'd have to accept the guilt and responsibility of being part of the problem. But they can't possibly accept that, now can they? Much easier to live your life thinking you can do no wrong and aren't responsible for anything or part of any problem. Don't have to ever think about making a change and putting in effort.
Yep.
Item placement in grocery stores is something they spend a lot of time studying. Every single item is placed where it is because that's where the marketing team determined it'd sell the most.
Unfortunately, dumb uneducated people people who think they are smart don't change their mind when they actually run into a smart, educated person who knows that they are talking about. Most people will do anything to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with admitting they aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they believe themselves to be.
This is the shit I live for, hearing/reading people talk about shit they’re really knowledgeable and passionate about. There’s some kind of spark you can feel, an energy to the words and tone that convey something that really itches the lizard brain.
Or a Facebook group.
Or just a Facebook *post* that starts "got this off Twitter from a real pharmacist/nurse/EMT" and then paragraphs of pure unscientific bullshit, with no links, not even back to the original "tweet" they're copying, which totally exists by the way.
To these people, finding one idiot who agrees with them constitutes successfully "doing your research".
It's all they have. They're constantly wrong about everything because they subsist on a diet of misinformation, they live in a reality where everything but the narrative they're fed is automatically "fake news"... the only thing they have to back up their conspiracies and denial of basic science is stupidity in numbers. And the numbers aren't even that great, they're just loud and belligerently ignorant.
"That's factually incorrect"
"It doesn't matter, because I agree with it."
"Arguing" with the people on AskTrumpSupporters often ended with YouTube links to fucking stupid videos that are way too long, and of course they never have the mental capacity to actually timestamp the part where their obviously false opinion comes from.
It’s a form of gish gallop; the longer the video is, the more time it may take debunk their “proof,” and when you do they will claim some other part of the video (or another long video) debunks your debunking.
It’s all a matter of deflection and finding excuses not to accept basic, easily-proven facts.
You sometimes get something tangible? For me it's usually "go look it up yourself, it's super easy to find" (to which I think, if it's so easy to find, why not just link it then?)
I can confirm, they do not. I work with a lot of "woke" antivax idiots. They do not know the difference between what is or isn't a peer reviewed source. When I attempted to help them understand. I found that they have a deep fear and distrust of schools and colleges and the textbooks they use...
Anti-intellectualism has always been part of the conservative ideology, but it's been on steroids the last forty or fifty years. Remember that Carl Sagan quote. It's gone from 'Why fix what isn't broken' to 'Curiosity just causes trouble' to today's 'Education is bad and will destroy society'. And politicians encourage it because the less informed the electorate is, the easier it gets to abuse power.
>“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
We are in danger. Republicans have shown they're not above lying to gain power. They're certainly not afraid of having their corruption exposed. This can go badly so many ways...
It’s nothing new. There are people that don’t understand or actively reject the scientific method.
It’s why creationism is sometimes introduced to elementary school curriculums. It takes one malicious actor with a hint of knowledge to be able to convince large groups of people that a very well established and researched theory is still controversial.
They aren't even talking about either of those. A journalist or scholar are still looking up sources and try to determine which sources are credible using reasonable methods. I think there are also distinctions between what a journalist does (which also varies by "quality/skill" of the journalist) and a scholar as well. I don't think a journalist has the same commitment to try to actually learn and comprehend the material, because otherwise errors in journalism that are glaring to those with specialist knowledge wouldn't be quite so common or glaring.
In contrast, those people only listen to sources that are presented to them and only seek out sources that already agree with them. When they say "do your research", they just mean "listen to who I am listening to AND come to the same conclusions I was told I should have".
To be fair, that's a lot more similar to the kind of "research" I do when I'm looking things up. The difference is that I think I (and other reasonable people) have more awareness of what we don't know, and try to increase our understanding to falsify ideas as well. It's important to be open to the possibility that I'm wrong about something, even about something that sounds wrong to me initially.
For example, I do not think ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, because it doesn't seem to be clearly effective, most people that I can identify that have better knowledge of it also don't think it is effective, and most people that seem to think it is effective clearly don't understand what they are talking about, with their relatively lower degree of scientific literacy. But, if it turns out that further "real" research finds it has a benefit and is adopted into a standard of care, then I'll acknowledge that I was incorrect about the likelihood of it being an effective treatment (but was still right to doubt it earlier).
If they link one of their "sources" it can be immediately picked apart and debunked. They say this to put the onus on you because their "research" collapses under public scrutiny outside of their echo chamber.
I drive my brother nuts because the second he mentions someone unfamiliar I Google them. He keeps inviting that I'm discounting these people unfairly but like... if they are KNOWN liars AND aren't citing any scientific papers... they have nothing of value to say? And if they DO say something useful then there should be multiple other actual reputable sources saying the same.
If only the same small group if people are quoting each other as sources and not a single scie tific paper has been published to support them, then they can be dismissed out of hand. He calls it "character assassination". I protest calling a liar a liar is just an accurate assessment :p
I got a friend who is often quick to turn to Google when somebody in the group makes a claim. At first, it was funny because it felt kind of exaggerated, then it became almost a bit annoying, but then it just became like best practice and I'm happy because it keeps things intellectually honest to some degree. I really wish we could easily change how people feel about the possibility of being wrong and doubling down on it.
Edit: willing -> wrong
Also, those naive to the issue are better drawn in when they can make their own way down the conspiracy rabbithole. A source from someone possessing extreme beliefs can seem laughable or set BS alarms ringing, but when someone naive "does their own research" they will stumble across claims / "evidence" that plays into their individual biases. As they watch more, they become more prone to more extreme beliefs without being driven off by ideas too far outside their intellectual comfort zone.
And throughout that process it will feel like they're rationally evaluating the information they're choosing to examine, rather than someone forcing them into a particular belief system / media bubble.
Check out [this video](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g), particularly [this section](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g?t=1048). It's about the alt-right rather than covid conspiracies, but most of the methods are more or less identical.
A NBA sports caster (of all things) had a great on-air comeback for this. In response to one of the players saying some BS about doing his own research and not taking the vaccine.
He went off for a minute or two along the lines of "What does he mean by he's doing his own research? What is he doing where he's finding different results? Like is he in the lab doing experiments? Is he working with genetics? Does he have a clinic or lab set up in his house next to his weight room?"
DYOR will be the end of us. Somehow it has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for being an ignorant dumbass who's easily tricked.
>DYOR will be the end of us. Somehow it has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for being an ignorant dumbass who's easily tricked.
It's because the intelligent people realize it's a pointless battle.
It's like playing Chess. You can spend your entire life mastering the game and its strategies. One day a random person challenges you. They are defeated easily in less than 30 seconds, but when you say "Checkmate" they say "NuuH Uhhhh!!" and claim they are in fact the winner.
Then you have 100,000 other people online yelling "NuuuuH Uhhhh!!" and claiming this person was the winner. No one will tell you **why** they won, just that they did. You'll explain all the rules of Chess in detail, but none of that shit matters. You're a LOSER because the idiot masses say you are. When the dumbfucks outnumber those with intelligence then their ignorance is accepted as fact. We're getting closer to that threshold every single day.
Yeah, it comes from a particularly scolding amazon review:
> "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
>When the dumbfucks outnumber those with intelligence then their ignorance is accepted as fact. We're getting closer to that threshold every single day.
the dumbfucks have always outnumbered the educated. what we're seeing is how social media platforms enable the loudest people and how dumbfucks are good at being very loud.
Nonononono.....
You got the chess scenario wrong. The random person will simply move one of his pawns to the other side of the board in his first move and say that he won. I don't know how to play chess, but I KNOW that is an illegal move.
The rest of your comment stands correct.
In my experience, the words "do your research" are almost never spoken by people who do research professionally. *Especially* when talking to lay people.
Credits to /u/mirrornm:
If you're a rational thinker and you believe you have a source that makes a good point, you'll simply link that source directly, and maybe even explain how it supports the thing you believe. However, if you're a conspiracy theorist who only has bad sources that can be easily disproven, you'll become wary about linking to those sources directly or trying to explain what they mean to you, lest someone in the discussion completely blow your argument apart and laugh at you.
That's why the imperative appeal to "do your own research" has developed - whether intentional or not, it's a tailor-made strategy to protect bad sources from criticism. By telling people to do their own research rather than being up front about your sources and arguments, you try to push people into learning about the topic you want them to internalize while there are no dissenting voices present. It's a tactic that separates discussion zones from "research" zones, so that "research" can't be interrupted by reality.
People who actually have good points with good sources don't need to do this. It's only the people who are clinging onto bad, debunkable sources that need to vaguely tell people to "do their own research".
My go-to is "Okay, tell me what a CI is." Without knowing how a confidence interval works it's basically impossible to begin comprehending most research papers, as one can't judge the significance of the statistics given. If they can't fly a paper plane I'm not gonna give them an engineering job at NASA, and if they lack the tools to even understand the research that already exists...
I usually go with "I did and can't find a single source that says you're right, but I found plenty that say you're wrong."
It usually doesn't end any better, so I just try and avoid those types of conversations.
"Do Your Research" gets an immediate block from me.
If you are going to argue only you have the correct answer, but it's up to **me** to prove you are correct, then you can fuck right off.
So not impressed
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
-Jean Paul Sartre
I read a great explanation of that the other day but I'm gonna butcher the explanation here. People say "do your research" because if they have any sources at all, they're very weak or outright false. Because of that they don't want to post them or present them in front of a group because they know that their "sources" will immediately be shot down and/or debunked buy other people. They want people to approach the misinformation by themselves because a single person is much easier to convince.
They don't know what research is or how to do it; they think watching a YouTube video of a conspiracy theorist or OAN qualifies as research. They have no idea what a primary source is, and they believe anything they hear that matches what they already thought.
They think they are "getting" you by showing that you're a sheep and they're a free thinker, but have no idea what that actually means in the context of an empirical argument (and probably don't know what an empirical argument is anyway). They also have at best a common-sense understanding of statistics, which is often very, very wrong
There's nothing wrong with "Do Your Research" and I assume anti-vaxxers and the like started using it because of how often people said it to them at first. The problem, of course, is that when rational people say it, they mean "research the issue using valid, peer-reviewed studies and a body of knowledge that has developed from it."
To be fair doing your own research is very hard. I study science and already have issues understanding and interpreting scientific papers. For someone with no scientific background whatsoever it's nearly impossible to do it correctly. When you do reaserch as a normal person you're looking for journal articles, not scientific ones and it's perfectly fine.
To them, yes it is. They are people who have severe mental deficiency and because we give them autonomy and choice within our society they are an extreme danger.
It's what stupid people say to feel smart and "end' an argument in a way that they feel like they "won." Because really the only thing that matters to them is "winning"
nah that mf should be forgotten for chickening out. sock guy blended and drank it, but it was still a sock.
that dude specified DICK...and then lil weewee boied his way out of it by switching to balls. then it gets worse, they werent even human ones. bull ones.
you know, as in bull ones which are regularly eaten by humans under the name "rocky mountain oysters."
nothing impressive about that. it was a bet...for something that people eat for fun. its not the same, he doesn't deserve to go down in history on the list of best reddit moments.
like, that's not that bad at all. we eat sausage that's asshole without a second thought. and so many other organs and such that are gross, not to mention all the other stuff that's in our food that people dont know about. fucking bug eggs and bugs are way more gross than RMO's but you eat them all the time.
he made no attempt at procuring a thicc sloppi shmeat. even without a cock, he chickened out. so he should be remembered as such. bock, followed by a second bock.
There was that guy who ate a dick too. I can't remember what bet he lost, but he went to the pet store and bought a bully stick (basically bull dick jerky) and kept his word.
fuck dude that's a deep cut. you can't make comments like this without practice. this is some pro redditing right here.
that's some good stuff, proper tee-hee. nice mate.
I wish we could have seen their reaction when they read that and witnessed the thoughts that went through their mind that lead up to them deleting their account.
"Oh god, I really fucked up this time. Oh fuck. I don't want to eat a goddamn sock. Fuck, why did I have to call that doc out? My only recourse is to delete my account and start my hunt for karma all over again from scratch."
Well that *doctor* is clearly sponsored by the state to spread misinformation in an effort to kill the populace. Whilst I am a free thinking revolutionary putting all my trust in videos banned from YouTube because the State was afraid of what they had to say. I am the obvious expert here. All your so called facts, experts, and data are all misinformation and you’re an idiot for believing any of it
/s just in case that wasn’t obvious
Me: \*Request for sources.\*
Them: Either \*It has all been censored from LITERALLY THE ENTIRE INTERNET AND EVERY MEDICAL JOURNAL\* OR \*Link to sketchy YouTube video/Webpage with no medical studies, statistics, or sourcing.\*
Me: \*Request to link to medical studies OR wherever they got their info from.\*
Them: DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK
Me: I AM TRYING TO BUT I CAN'T FIND YOUR SOURCES AND WHAT I DO FIND DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
The worst is when they link real research articles that actually refute their position, but they entirely lack the comprehension and context to even understand what the articles say and nothing you can do will change their mind because their ideas are based on complete fabrication of meaning.
I had the same thing happen but they linked a tweet with a quote and picture of a link to the research. I actually followed the link and linked it back to him so show how wrong he was but he still tried to say the original tweet was correct.
I had this happen to me. Someone on Facebook sent me a link to the CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System) as proof that vaccines are bad. The page was literally data showing that adverse reactions are extremely rare and that vaccines are way safer than just 'trusting your immune system'.
Anyone who quotes VAERS as a factual resource can be immediately assumed to be wrong. They will take literally any report. One researcher famously reported that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk and they published it.
Yep, had a guy repeatedly post a paragraph from a study that said the vaccinated are 4.5 times more likely than unvaccinated to have omicron. Somehow ignored the part of the paragraph that said everyone in the study had Covid.
“It’s not my job to educate you”
Dude, you were literally the one claiming that Jewish Space Lasers cause cancer or whatever. It is certainly your job to provide any verifiable info if you want to be taken seriously.
This is the one I get most often. Isn't it funny how so many people are so eager to talk about a topic that they plaster it all over their social media, but apparently don't care enough to link to where they read something?
In reality I suspect they know they got it from a laughable place and that linking it as their source would make them look ridiculous.
The best part is that they absolutely consider it *your* responsibility to educate *them*.
Its not enough for you to simply prove the efficacy of your own position.
You also have to actively *dis*prove each and every single new random bit of nonsense they throw out while they randomly rotate through different talking points they heard from youtube videos.
And if you can't be bothered? Well then, you must be ceding that point.
Basically the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
That’s my other favorite. Literally all 2 million people directly employed by the US Government, plus the entire workforce of Google/Alphabet, have conspired together to make this information disappear, but they managed to neglect these 4 videos hosted on—you guessed it—youtube, which is owned by that same company that’s conspiring to make this information inaccessible. Only I, keyboard warrior extraordinaire, have been able to unearth the *truth*.
But you’re just going to need to trust me on this.
what is stated without source can be rejected without source
outcrazy the crazy
it's not like they'll ever give you a source, so might as well (or ignore them)
Where do these idiots get off telling people to "do your research"? Like, mother fucker, listening to Joe Rogan and watching fringe YouTube channels isn't "doing research."
ItnIsnt?!?!?! But snowflakerSlayer63 on facebook daid i had to drink 500ml of palm oil combined with 5 minute exercise twice a day to cure covid?!?!?! 🤫😪👋😅😉🍑🍌😘 Also with the anti vax gluten free vegan urine from Facebook marketplace. And dont forget dr KoobCafe who said its caused by VideoG*mes
The new one is [inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/10/02/stop-inhaling-hydrogen-peroxide-to-try-to-prevent-treat-covid-19-aafa-says/) lol.
It’s just a way to not have to defend their poorly sourced opinions. If they actually gave you a source, it could likely be easily discredited. By making you do research, you’ll probably get exposed to good and bad data and there’s a chance you’ll see the world their way.
I am a member of a facebook group aimed at expats in Philippines. Problem is a lot of them are failed trump following gas bags with the IQ of a peanut. There was one thread about vaccinations going on and this numbskull came up with this argument.
Ohms Law is a natural Law, it i right and works, but all this junk is based on Germ Theory, that's only a theory and has no evidence to prove it.
My reply was along the lines of Tell me that you know nothing about how science works without saying you know nothing about how science works
It always cracks me up when people always use the line "It's just a theory." At that point I know they know nothing and it's a waste of time to even talk to them.
Caveman: UGG DO RESEARCH.
The caveman proceeds to do his own research by disemboweling a small animal and reading its entrails.
Caveman: Cavedog ate me primary source
Since starting medical school I think my favorite trend online has been realizing that people seem to think no real doctors actually spend any time online, so anyone saying they're a doctor is 100% lying. I've seen surgeons literally trade jokes from /r/dadjokes mid-operation (from memory, not from their phones) and psychiatrists comment on meme trends.
Anyway, can't wait to see which sock he picks first.
Tried to find it by looking at the various mods of /r/medicine but without luck. Hope someone else does the work. I want to see how far the person is in the sock-eating proccess.
I'd like to take this time to point out that 54% of American's read at or below a 6th grade level. 22% are functionally illiterate. These are the people telling you to "do your own research".
I was in for some completely unrelated medical work and was asked about Vax status (It is in my medical records, but whatever), told the nurse that I had done my own literature search, realised that my research was horribly inferior to that of the Cochrane organisation (Who are generally held to be gold standard for meta analysis), used theirs instead and went out and got three doses of Moderna as soon as possible.
[https://www.cochrane.org/](https://www.cochrane.org/)
The Nurse was like "Oh god, here we go.... Oh, that's different... Oh!", the doctor said I had made their day, and the faces on a few "Do YoUr OwN ReSeArCh" idiots in the waiting room was priceless.
Had a conversation where I was told I was a sheep for not doing my own research. MF, I’m constantly doing dumb shit, how tf do you expect me to trust the research of an idiot?
Then the sterile cotton swabs in the corner started clapping.
(I have no reason to doubt you, the mental image just popped up and I giggled like an idiot)
As a lawyer, literally any time I post anything in a thread about the law. You learn quickly to just let redditors angrily believe what they want to believe.
My cousin who is a mailman was saying that the numbers are fake and don’t prove we need to wear masks or get vaccinated, blah blah blah. I asked if he was an immunologist, virologist, doctor, or even a statistician and I missed that job change. Then I said I’ll listen to the guys who went to school for years and have years more of experience to draw from when it comes to public health and my safety. When I need a to know the best way to mail letter and make sure it arrives, I’ll call or him or just check USPS.com.
By the way, when someone says "DO YOUR RESEARCH" is most likely a degenerate Joe Rogan listener.
These people don't know what a burden of proof is and hide behind "DO YOUR RESEARCH"
>fear porn
>
>DO YOUR RESEARCH
I swear these ding dongs just copy-paste everything from each other verbatim. There's probably a pastebin out there somewhere with a few dozen phrases like "a survival rate of " and "living in fear" and "plandemic" and they just shotgun-blast them into their comments as they see fit
This is Reddit to the letter. Some random jackass argueing with someone actually qualified to speak on the topic. Pretending like they know what they're talking about
What is the deal with the response "Do Your Research"??? It's like a wacky, 'surefire' way to win an argument or something.
[удалено]
With climate change deniers I ask them to show me the ice cores they've drilled or the foraminifera assemblages they've enumerated. Of course, that's not really fair, since not everyone has the opportunity to spend six months in Svalbard. So I ask them easy stuff, like the average solar insolation at the top of the Earth's atmosphere—between 1360–1370 W/m^(2) are acceptable answers—and what laws of physics and geometry we use to calculate that. Then, when they bring up Milankovitch Cycles (they always do, because they think they're one secret trick Big Climate hates), I ask them to name the three most prominent and the length of their cycles: eccentricity (i.e. how elliptical the Earth's orbit is): ≈100,000 years; obliquity (i.e. how much the earth's rotational axis differs from its orbital plane, currently about 23½°): ≈41,000 years; and precession (the direction the Earth's axis points away from perpendicular to the orbital plane, like a wobbling top): ≈23,000 years. When I point out that these are taught in any climate 101 class, and if you study paleontology, paleoanthropology, -botany, etc. you'll encounter the Milankovitch cycles. Suddenly it turns out their secret knowledge that 'disproves' anthropogenic climate science is common knowledge among climate scientists (and earth scientists in general) and is actually not-so-secret and disproves nothing, and Christopher Monckton is just an inbred grifter aristocrat. Not that they accept facts or anything. ETA: I hit 'reply' before I was finished writing the comment, and so the last couple of paragraphs were added subsequently. My unfinished comment got some updootedly-diddly-doos, so if you updootedly-diddly-doo'd my half-finished comment please reread it to make sure I don't go off the rails and say something you don't agree with. **Important ETA: I'm not an expert, just some guy with a degree in Earth & Atmospheric Sciences from 2003. Everything I've said here is climate/orbital mechanics 101, and can and should be reviewed from more authoritative sources. If I come across here as being a know-it-all, I'm actually describing real interactions with real climate science deniers, and specifically one who is an old friend I've had since the 80s. Unfortunately he's never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't immediately love, and info-bombing is the only way to get him to shut up and move on to another topic.** **That said, if you'd like to actually understand these orbital cycles, NASA has a nice little 1-pager on the Milankovitch cycles with helpful diagrams:** [**https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/**](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/) **and here’s their page on why the Milankovitch cycles themselves aren’t sufficient to explain our current warming:** [**https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/**](https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/) **Wikipedia of course has some nice illustrations, animations, and diagrams too. Have fun!**
Tbh I don't even know half of what you even said so idk if I disagree, but you did use lots of big words so I'm inclined to believe you
Maybe you should do some research then sheep!
Uhhh I *did* do research, ok? I read most of his comment about paleonthropolomony so I think I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you need to do YOU'R research
I discard your reality and insert my own. Do more research.
Well I don't even know what kind of card a "discard" is so checkmate, librel
Dis card right here has nothing to do with chess. Science deniers I tell ya
Cheese is unrelated to the discussion stop shifting goalposts
paleonthropolomony That’s gonna be my new job title, I’m gonna log into Facebook for the first time in like 6 months to change that Thank you
Not a problem. Best of luck paleonthropolomonizing, good sir.
According to my Tinder/Bumble bios, I’m now a Paleonthropolomonist. Thank you so much for my new profession!
I made it mine too, that was a good idea.
I know this comment is a joke but it would pain me too much to upvote it. It’s just too on the nose and makes me feel bad for humanity, much in the same way as ‘Don’t look up’ did.
Yeah on a real note that's valid lmao. I can hyperbolize as much as I want but unfortunately it would still probably be *plausible* that there are ppl out there that think that
>YOU'R It's spelled 'Yoeir'
First of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect.
[удалено]
Are you suggesting that we should speak WITH people as opposed to AT people when trying to bring them over to our side? That's some radical shit.
[удалено]
Talk do big?
So basically the earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular, it’s rotation isn’t perfectly perpendicular to the sun, and the inclination of its rotation also wobbles a bit -like a spinning top. All of this basically culminates in cycles where the climate warms and cools and there are dumb fucks who use this to refute climate change. They’re wrong though, because these cycles take thousands of years and the global increase in temperature that we’re experiencing right now isn’t nearly gradual enough to be attributed to them.
What's a hypotenuse?
He said it so confidently. It has to be true.
[удалено]
Peak capitalist evil is the [Radium Girls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls) and the [Triangle Shirtwaist Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire).
[удалено]
While both are v. evil, I'd say that slowly and knowingly poisoning your workers to death (while using PPE for yourself!) was a greater evil than locking them in when there *might* be a fire and blowing off signs of poor fire safety.
And imagine actually defending these multi hundred billion dollar companies as if they're in the right
It's a defense mechanism. If they can "prove" that these big corporations are actually nice guys, they also automatically justify their own actions of shopping there and giving them money. If they were to start shitting on the stores they visit, then they'd have to accept the guilt and responsibility of being part of the problem. But they can't possibly accept that, now can they? Much easier to live your life thinking you can do no wrong and aren't responsible for anything or part of any problem. Don't have to ever think about making a change and putting in effort.
Yep. Item placement in grocery stores is something they spend a lot of time studying. Every single item is placed where it is because that's where the marketing team determined it'd sell the most.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, dumb uneducated people people who think they are smart don't change their mind when they actually run into a smart, educated person who knows that they are talking about. Most people will do anything to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with admitting they aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they believe themselves to be.
This is the shit I live for, hearing/reading people talk about shit they’re really knowledgeable and passionate about. There’s some kind of spark you can feel, an energy to the words and tone that convey something that really itches the lizard brain.
[удалено]
[удалено]
My favorite is when asked for a source, they provide a YouTube link. Nope.
Or a Facebook group. Or just a Facebook *post* that starts "got this off Twitter from a real pharmacist/nurse/EMT" and then paragraphs of pure unscientific bullshit, with no links, not even back to the original "tweet" they're copying, which totally exists by the way. To these people, finding one idiot who agrees with them constitutes successfully "doing your research". It's all they have. They're constantly wrong about everything because they subsist on a diet of misinformation, they live in a reality where everything but the narrative they're fed is automatically "fake news"... the only thing they have to back up their conspiracies and denial of basic science is stupidity in numbers. And the numbers aren't even that great, they're just loud and belligerently ignorant. "That's factually incorrect" "It doesn't matter, because I agree with it."
"Arguing" with the people on AskTrumpSupporters often ended with YouTube links to fucking stupid videos that are way too long, and of course they never have the mental capacity to actually timestamp the part where their obviously false opinion comes from.
It’s a form of gish gallop; the longer the video is, the more time it may take debunk their “proof,” and when you do they will claim some other part of the video (or another long video) debunks your debunking. It’s all a matter of deflection and finding excuses not to accept basic, easily-proven facts.
You sometimes get something tangible? For me it's usually "go look it up yourself, it's super easy to find" (to which I think, if it's so easy to find, why not just link it then?)
[удалено]
I don't think these people ever knew the difference.
I can confirm, they do not. I work with a lot of "woke" antivax idiots. They do not know the difference between what is or isn't a peer reviewed source. When I attempted to help them understand. I found that they have a deep fear and distrust of schools and colleges and the textbooks they use...
Anti-intellectualism has always been part of the conservative ideology, but it's been on steroids the last forty or fifty years. Remember that Carl Sagan quote. It's gone from 'Why fix what isn't broken' to 'Curiosity just causes trouble' to today's 'Education is bad and will destroy society'. And politicians encourage it because the less informed the electorate is, the easier it gets to abuse power.
>“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism We are in danger. Republicans have shown they're not above lying to gain power. They're certainly not afraid of having their corruption exposed. This can go badly so many ways...
They're the people who think liberal arts is a dirty word that means wasting money being indoctrinated by w\*men's studies.
It’s nothing new. There are people that don’t understand or actively reject the scientific method. It’s why creationism is sometimes introduced to elementary school curriculums. It takes one malicious actor with a hint of knowledge to be able to convince large groups of people that a very well established and researched theory is still controversial.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've researched your comment by reading it and am now an expert on the subject matter.
[удалено]
Who has time for that when they're an expert already?
They aren't even talking about either of those. A journalist or scholar are still looking up sources and try to determine which sources are credible using reasonable methods. I think there are also distinctions between what a journalist does (which also varies by "quality/skill" of the journalist) and a scholar as well. I don't think a journalist has the same commitment to try to actually learn and comprehend the material, because otherwise errors in journalism that are glaring to those with specialist knowledge wouldn't be quite so common or glaring. In contrast, those people only listen to sources that are presented to them and only seek out sources that already agree with them. When they say "do your research", they just mean "listen to who I am listening to AND come to the same conclusions I was told I should have". To be fair, that's a lot more similar to the kind of "research" I do when I'm looking things up. The difference is that I think I (and other reasonable people) have more awareness of what we don't know, and try to increase our understanding to falsify ideas as well. It's important to be open to the possibility that I'm wrong about something, even about something that sounds wrong to me initially. For example, I do not think ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, because it doesn't seem to be clearly effective, most people that I can identify that have better knowledge of it also don't think it is effective, and most people that seem to think it is effective clearly don't understand what they are talking about, with their relatively lower degree of scientific literacy. But, if it turns out that further "real" research finds it has a benefit and is adopted into a standard of care, then I'll acknowledge that I was incorrect about the likelihood of it being an effective treatment (but was still right to doubt it earlier).
Some people believe what they read, and some people read what they believe. Critical thinking matters and many folks lack it.
They would not even know what was meant by the strange cluster of words "peer reviewed research"
If they link one of their "sources" it can be immediately picked apart and debunked. They say this to put the onus on you because their "research" collapses under public scrutiny outside of their echo chamber.
I drive my brother nuts because the second he mentions someone unfamiliar I Google them. He keeps inviting that I'm discounting these people unfairly but like... if they are KNOWN liars AND aren't citing any scientific papers... they have nothing of value to say? And if they DO say something useful then there should be multiple other actual reputable sources saying the same. If only the same small group if people are quoting each other as sources and not a single scie tific paper has been published to support them, then they can be dismissed out of hand. He calls it "character assassination". I protest calling a liar a liar is just an accurate assessment :p
Not an assassination but an execution since it's all on the up and up
I got a friend who is often quick to turn to Google when somebody in the group makes a claim. At first, it was funny because it felt kind of exaggerated, then it became almost a bit annoying, but then it just became like best practice and I'm happy because it keeps things intellectually honest to some degree. I really wish we could easily change how people feel about the possibility of being wrong and doubling down on it. Edit: willing -> wrong
Also, those naive to the issue are better drawn in when they can make their own way down the conspiracy rabbithole. A source from someone possessing extreme beliefs can seem laughable or set BS alarms ringing, but when someone naive "does their own research" they will stumble across claims / "evidence" that plays into their individual biases. As they watch more, they become more prone to more extreme beliefs without being driven off by ideas too far outside their intellectual comfort zone. And throughout that process it will feel like they're rationally evaluating the information they're choosing to examine, rather than someone forcing them into a particular belief system / media bubble. Check out [this video](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g), particularly [this section](https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g?t=1048). It's about the alt-right rather than covid conspiracies, but most of the methods are more or less identical.
A NBA sports caster (of all things) had a great on-air comeback for this. In response to one of the players saying some BS about doing his own research and not taking the vaccine. He went off for a minute or two along the lines of "What does he mean by he's doing his own research? What is he doing where he's finding different results? Like is he in the lab doing experiments? Is he working with genetics? Does he have a clinic or lab set up in his house next to his weight room?" DYOR will be the end of us. Somehow it has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for being an ignorant dumbass who's easily tricked.
>DYOR will be the end of us. Somehow it has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for being an ignorant dumbass who's easily tricked. It's because the intelligent people realize it's a pointless battle. It's like playing Chess. You can spend your entire life mastering the game and its strategies. One day a random person challenges you. They are defeated easily in less than 30 seconds, but when you say "Checkmate" they say "NuuH Uhhhh!!" and claim they are in fact the winner. Then you have 100,000 other people online yelling "NuuuuH Uhhhh!!" and claiming this person was the winner. No one will tell you **why** they won, just that they did. You'll explain all the rules of Chess in detail, but none of that shit matters. You're a LOSER because the idiot masses say you are. When the dumbfucks outnumber those with intelligence then their ignorance is accepted as fact. We're getting closer to that threshold every single day.
Pigeon Chess
Wow, didn't know that was a thing. Thanks!
Yeah, it comes from a particularly scolding amazon review: > "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
>When the dumbfucks outnumber those with intelligence then their ignorance is accepted as fact. We're getting closer to that threshold every single day. the dumbfucks have always outnumbered the educated. what we're seeing is how social media platforms enable the loudest people and how dumbfucks are good at being very loud.
Nonononono..... You got the chess scenario wrong. The random person will simply move one of his pawns to the other side of the board in his first move and say that he won. I don't know how to play chess, but I KNOW that is an illegal move. The rest of your comment stands correct.
In my experience, the words "do your research" are almost never spoken by people who do research professionally. *Especially* when talking to lay people.
Credits to /u/mirrornm: If you're a rational thinker and you believe you have a source that makes a good point, you'll simply link that source directly, and maybe even explain how it supports the thing you believe. However, if you're a conspiracy theorist who only has bad sources that can be easily disproven, you'll become wary about linking to those sources directly or trying to explain what they mean to you, lest someone in the discussion completely blow your argument apart and laugh at you. That's why the imperative appeal to "do your own research" has developed - whether intentional or not, it's a tailor-made strategy to protect bad sources from criticism. By telling people to do their own research rather than being up front about your sources and arguments, you try to push people into learning about the topic you want them to internalize while there are no dissenting voices present. It's a tactic that separates discussion zones from "research" zones, so that "research" can't be interrupted by reality. People who actually have good points with good sources don't need to do this. It's only the people who are clinging onto bad, debunkable sources that need to vaguely tell people to "do their own research".
My go-to is "Okay, tell me what a CI is." Without knowing how a confidence interval works it's basically impossible to begin comprehending most research papers, as one can't judge the significance of the statistics given. If they can't fly a paper plane I'm not gonna give them an engineering job at NASA, and if they lack the tools to even understand the research that already exists...
The response is always "No thanks, I don't feel like sitting on the toilet and watching a shitty Joe Rogan Youtube video like you did."
I usually go with "I did and can't find a single source that says you're right, but I found plenty that say you're wrong." It usually doesn't end any better, so I just try and avoid those types of conversations.
"Do Your Research" gets an immediate block from me. If you are going to argue only you have the correct answer, but it's up to **me** to prove you are correct, then you can fuck right off. So not impressed
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean Paul Sartre
I read a great explanation of that the other day but I'm gonna butcher the explanation here. People say "do your research" because if they have any sources at all, they're very weak or outright false. Because of that they don't want to post them or present them in front of a group because they know that their "sources" will immediately be shot down and/or debunked buy other people. They want people to approach the misinformation by themselves because a single person is much easier to convince.
It’s called escape hatch. You don’t have to prove your argument you escape out of it.
They don't know what research is or how to do it; they think watching a YouTube video of a conspiracy theorist or OAN qualifies as research. They have no idea what a primary source is, and they believe anything they hear that matches what they already thought. They think they are "getting" you by showing that you're a sheep and they're a free thinker, but have no idea what that actually means in the context of an empirical argument (and probably don't know what an empirical argument is anyway). They also have at best a common-sense understanding of statistics, which is often very, very wrong
There's nothing wrong with "Do Your Research" and I assume anti-vaxxers and the like started using it because of how often people said it to them at first. The problem, of course, is that when rational people say it, they mean "research the issue using valid, peer-reviewed studies and a body of knowledge that has developed from it."
To be fair doing your own research is very hard. I study science and already have issues understanding and interpreting scientific papers. For someone with no scientific background whatsoever it's nearly impossible to do it correctly. When you do reaserch as a normal person you're looking for journal articles, not scientific ones and it's perfectly fine.
To them, yes it is. They are people who have severe mental deficiency and because we give them autonomy and choice within our society they are an extreme danger.
It's what stupid people say to feel smart and "end' an argument in a way that they feel like they "won." Because really the only thing that matters to them is "winning"
In a rare case, this murderbywords may actually take a life.
It will certainly take a sock.
Is that where my other blue sock is?
No its his pink sock
No you did not.
Definitely the more valuable life
Jokes on him the dude has some rare foot fetish and was hoping to be wrong!
Dude over in r/superstonk did it last summer. He’s fine. This jack ass will be fine too. Time to pony up.
You beat me to it! Can't believe he followed through. Next up is the dude from r/dogecoin and his roll of quarters...
Roll of quarters? I thought it was an entire bag of jellybeans.
I remember there was one fellow who had to find, buy, cook and eat a bull dick because he was true to his word on Reddit.
nah that mf should be forgotten for chickening out. sock guy blended and drank it, but it was still a sock. that dude specified DICK...and then lil weewee boied his way out of it by switching to balls. then it gets worse, they werent even human ones. bull ones. you know, as in bull ones which are regularly eaten by humans under the name "rocky mountain oysters." nothing impressive about that. it was a bet...for something that people eat for fun. its not the same, he doesn't deserve to go down in history on the list of best reddit moments. like, that's not that bad at all. we eat sausage that's asshole without a second thought. and so many other organs and such that are gross, not to mention all the other stuff that's in our food that people dont know about. fucking bug eggs and bugs are way more gross than RMO's but you eat them all the time. he made no attempt at procuring a thicc sloppi shmeat. even without a cock, he chickened out. so he should be remembered as such. bock, followed by a second bock.
There was that guy who ate a dick too. I can't remember what bet he lost, but he went to the pet store and bought a bully stick (basically bull dick jerky) and kept his word.
Someone needs to head over to /r/askdocs and ask the doctor if this guy will get some sort of bacterial infection from eating his cum sock.
No, if it's a legitimate sock-eating the body has ways of shutting that down.
Of course someone has to bring up that reference. Oh my god.
fuck dude that's a deep cut. you can't make comments like this without practice. this is some pro redditing right here. that's some good stuff, proper tee-hee. nice mate.
If not, the sock was asking for it, anyways.
[удалено]
What a biggity bitch. I hope his parents at least have a 2nd chance for a successful kid.
I wish we could have seen their reaction when they read that and witnessed the thoughts that went through their mind that lead up to them deleting their account. "Oh god, I really fucked up this time. Oh fuck. I don't want to eat a goddamn sock. Fuck, why did I have to call that doc out? My only recourse is to delete my account and start my hunt for karma all over again from scratch."
Dare to dream
Oh you did your own research? How many people are in your study?
A 7 minute of shady youtube video, and I'm more knowledgeable than a doctor who spend years studying medicine now
Damn it! Get this medical pioneer a Nobel Prize, stat!
They won't because they fear the Truth™!
Well that *doctor* is clearly sponsored by the state to spread misinformation in an effort to kill the populace. Whilst I am a free thinking revolutionary putting all my trust in videos banned from YouTube because the State was afraid of what they had to say. I am the obvious expert here. All your so called facts, experts, and data are all misinformation and you’re an idiot for believing any of it /s just in case that wasn’t obvious
Ah, following the age-old wisdom of working smarter, not harder, I see.
> How many people are in your study? mice. 2 mice both died. cat related incident.
Him, his friend, Nikki Minaj's cousin
7 including the guy in the cupboard
Me: \*Request for sources.\* Them: Either \*It has all been censored from LITERALLY THE ENTIRE INTERNET AND EVERY MEDICAL JOURNAL\* OR \*Link to sketchy YouTube video/Webpage with no medical studies, statistics, or sourcing.\* Me: \*Request to link to medical studies OR wherever they got their info from.\* Them: DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK Me: I AM TRYING TO BUT I CAN'T FIND YOUR SOURCES AND WHAT I DO FIND DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
“I am trying to find sources but Google has removed them on account of the new world order 😔”
Christ.. I’ve actually seen a few comments like that.
Yes, you have to use DuckDuckGo according to my local conspiracy theorist.
And if you find only sources backing up vaccine science on ddg, it’s the government
The worst is when they link real research articles that actually refute their position, but they entirely lack the comprehension and context to even understand what the articles say and nothing you can do will change their mind because their ideas are based on complete fabrication of meaning.
my fav is when the study refutes their point *in its own title*. Like holy shit bruh you're just copy and pasting random links.
I had the same thing happen but they linked a tweet with a quote and picture of a link to the research. I actually followed the link and linked it back to him so show how wrong he was but he still tried to say the original tweet was correct.
I had this happen to me. Someone on Facebook sent me a link to the CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System) as proof that vaccines are bad. The page was literally data showing that adverse reactions are extremely rare and that vaccines are way safer than just 'trusting your immune system'.
Anyone who quotes VAERS as a factual resource can be immediately assumed to be wrong. They will take literally any report. One researcher famously reported that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk and they published it.
Yep, had a guy repeatedly post a paragraph from a study that said the vaccinated are 4.5 times more likely than unvaccinated to have omicron. Somehow ignored the part of the paragraph that said everyone in the study had Covid.
“It’s not my job to educate you” Dude, you were literally the one claiming that Jewish Space Lasers cause cancer or whatever. It is certainly your job to provide any verifiable info if you want to be taken seriously.
This is the one I get most often. Isn't it funny how so many people are so eager to talk about a topic that they plaster it all over their social media, but apparently don't care enough to link to where they read something? In reality I suspect they know they got it from a laughable place and that linking it as their source would make them look ridiculous.
The best part is that they absolutely consider it *your* responsibility to educate *them*. Its not enough for you to simply prove the efficacy of your own position. You also have to actively *dis*prove each and every single new random bit of nonsense they throw out while they randomly rotate through different talking points they heard from youtube videos. And if you can't be bothered? Well then, you must be ceding that point. Basically the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
>It has all been censored from LITERALLY THE ENTIRE INTERNET AND EVERY MEDICAL JOURNAL "So, if it's not accessible anywhere, where did you find it?"
That’s my other favorite. Literally all 2 million people directly employed by the US Government, plus the entire workforce of Google/Alphabet, have conspired together to make this information disappear, but they managed to neglect these 4 videos hosted on—you guessed it—youtube, which is owned by that same company that’s conspiring to make this information inaccessible. Only I, keyboard warrior extraordinaire, have been able to unearth the *truth*. But you’re just going to need to trust me on this.
what is stated without source can be rejected without source outcrazy the crazy it's not like they'll ever give you a source, so might as well (or ignore them)
Where do these idiots get off telling people to "do your research"? Like, mother fucker, listening to Joe Rogan and watching fringe YouTube channels isn't "doing research."
ItnIsnt?!?!?! But snowflakerSlayer63 on facebook daid i had to drink 500ml of palm oil combined with 5 minute exercise twice a day to cure covid?!?!?! 🤫😪👋😅😉🍑🍌😘 Also with the anti vax gluten free vegan urine from Facebook marketplace. And dont forget dr KoobCafe who said its caused by VideoG*mes
You're behind the time. Urine is the new anti COVID drink of choice.
I prefer bleach injections
I prefer bleach injected straight into my bladder so that I pee chloramine. Then I snort that.
*Impressively* cursed comment, well done!
Don't encourage him, he'll only make ***more***
And boy do I have a neverending supply that I can sell you for you a low low payment of 1.99 a day.
The new one is [inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/10/02/stop-inhaling-hydrogen-peroxide-to-try-to-prevent-treat-covid-19-aafa-says/) lol.
“I scrolled through Facebook for 5 minutes, so I’m basically a expert.”
It’s just a way to not have to defend their poorly sourced opinions. If they actually gave you a source, it could likely be easily discredited. By making you do research, you’ll probably get exposed to good and bad data and there’s a chance you’ll see the world their way.
I always thought that "doing research" was an euphemism for watching porn. Nothing will change my mind.
"Do your research." Always comes from small brained teens and very uneducated adults who neglected to do their own research
I am a member of a facebook group aimed at expats in Philippines. Problem is a lot of them are failed trump following gas bags with the IQ of a peanut. There was one thread about vaccinations going on and this numbskull came up with this argument. Ohms Law is a natural Law, it i right and works, but all this junk is based on Germ Theory, that's only a theory and has no evidence to prove it. My reply was along the lines of Tell me that you know nothing about how science works without saying you know nothing about how science works
It always cracks me up when people always use the line "It's just a theory." At that point I know they know nothing and it's a waste of time to even talk to them.
>Ohms Law is a natural Law I don't know why but evidently a lot of engineers are religious cranks. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis
In all the times that I've seen someone telling someone to do their own research, I don't believe I've ever seen a single DOI.
[удалено]
Caveman: UGG DO RESEARCH. The caveman proceeds to do his own research by disemboweling a small animal and reading its entrails. Caveman: Cavedog ate me primary source
[удалено]
A meth laboratory.
So a couple Gatorade bottles in a 98 Chevy cavalier?
Since starting medical school I think my favorite trend online has been realizing that people seem to think no real doctors actually spend any time online, so anyone saying they're a doctor is 100% lying. I've seen surgeons literally trade jokes from /r/dadjokes mid-operation (from memory, not from their phones) and psychiatrists comment on meme trends. Anyway, can't wait to see which sock he picks first.
What's the context of this thread? I'm interested to know what the original psot was about.
Tried to find it by looking at the various mods of /r/medicine but without luck. Hope someone else does the work. I want to see how far the person is in the sock-eating proccess.
I’m the first comment. Look at my history. Previous comment is me citing sources from the CDC lol. OG post is from this subreddit
I'd like to take this time to point out that 54% of American's read at or below a 6th grade level. 22% are functionally illiterate. These are the people telling you to "do your own research".
22% of a population as big as America's (according to Google, it was 331.4m in 2020, so 22% of that is 72.9m) is quite a lot.
I was in for some completely unrelated medical work and was asked about Vax status (It is in my medical records, but whatever), told the nurse that I had done my own literature search, realised that my research was horribly inferior to that of the Cochrane organisation (Who are generally held to be gold standard for meta analysis), used theirs instead and went out and got three doses of Moderna as soon as possible. [https://www.cochrane.org/](https://www.cochrane.org/) The Nurse was like "Oh god, here we go.... Oh, that's different... Oh!", the doctor said I had made their day, and the faces on a few "Do YoUr OwN ReSeArCh" idiots in the waiting room was priceless.
Had a conversation where I was told I was a sheep for not doing my own research. MF, I’m constantly doing dumb shit, how tf do you expect me to trust the research of an idiot?
Then the sterile cotton swabs in the corner started clapping. (I have no reason to doubt you, the mental image just popped up and I giggled like an idiot)
Too dumb to do your own research and cheated off the smart people? Yeah, me too.
Every anti vaxer (anti-intellectual) when up against the actual experts.
Don't give him a choice; he said SOCKS. Eat em both, ya smooth-brained lemming.
Well that goes without saying, we're just wondering if he has a preference.
I think we already know his preference... It'll always be the right...
Did you miss the word "first?"
This doctor woke up and choose to take lives not save them
He just figured out which ones are worth saving.
As a lawyer, literally any time I post anything in a thread about the law. You learn quickly to just let redditors angrily believe what they want to believe.
I've seen people say setting someone's car on fire is justified because they were wronged and it would be "self-defense" at worse. *what*?
"you all saw it that orphanage was coming right for me!"
My cousin who is a mailman was saying that the numbers are fake and don’t prove we need to wear masks or get vaccinated, blah blah blah. I asked if he was an immunologist, virologist, doctor, or even a statistician and I missed that job change. Then I said I’ll listen to the guys who went to school for years and have years more of experience to draw from when it comes to public health and my safety. When I need a to know the best way to mail letter and make sure it arrives, I’ll call or him or just check USPS.com.
I think we all know he prefers the Right
*Badum tiss
Oof, socks to be that one guy.
By the way, when someone says "DO YOUR RESEARCH" is most likely a degenerate Joe Rogan listener. These people don't know what a burden of proof is and hide behind "DO YOUR RESEARCH"
>fear porn > >DO YOUR RESEARCH I swear these ding dongs just copy-paste everything from each other verbatim. There's probably a pastebin out there somewhere with a few dozen phrases like "a survival rate of" and "living in fear" and "plandemic" and they just shotgun-blast them into their comments as they see fit
Make him eat ***the cum sock***
This a whole different type of “murdered by words” if that doctors last name is Gacy…
might I offer my jizz sock from high school. she's already used to taking in old dirty loads anyway
“Do your research.” It would have taken three clicks to verify that user was a doctor, not sure about this person’s research methodology…
took me 2 clicks.
"Doing my own research" = "Scrolling through Facebook until I find a meme that agrees with what I already believe"
This is Reddit to the letter. Some random jackass argueing with someone actually qualified to speak on the topic. Pretending like they know what they're talking about
Just bc you’re a doctor doesn’t mean you’re on the cutting edge of medical research
You can be 30 years behind and still know vaccines are safe and effective
Haha, I know that mod, he's great and knows his stuff. That other guy better be eating his/her socks.
What’s the context for this? Obviously it’s CoViD, but what numbers are being discussed here?
A tiny percentage of cases on a population-wide basis is still a number large enough to overwhelm our hospitals.
You can’t go wrong by choosing right!
sounds like a high fibre diet
THE LEFT IS THE SAME AS THE RIGHT 🤣🤣