Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who’s out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I’m probably not going to go there.
“This bar is not good” is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false
My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
Your argument is one about an opinion, not a piece of critique. You are basically asking if the reader believes they would find a bar frequented by a man in an SS uniform enjoyable. This differs from the question: “If a man in an SS uniform were to point out that Kamala Harris is just as complicit in the palestinian genocide as Trump is, would you dismiss the argument outright, due to the dress of the man?”
While all critique rests upon opinion, not all opinion is critique.
And I’m saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go “yeah I don’t trust the enquirer” and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.
Surely you don’t trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
In that case you’re just willfully misinterpreting clear language. Speaking like that “X is not treated in Y way” is commonly understood to have an implicit “should” substituting “is”. If your grasp of the English language is at the level youre demonstrating here, then you would also know that common parlance. So an extra level of being disingenuous.
On top of that youre still doing the thing wrong. Youre not presenting criticism in your analogy, but an opinion.
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who’s out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I’m probably not going to go there.
“This bar is not good” is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Lol. No. The parent quote was
My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
You’re making a huge equivocation fallacy here.
I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
Your argument is one about an opinion, not a piece of critique. You are basically asking if the reader believes they would find a bar frequented by a man in an SS uniform enjoyable. This differs from the question: “If a man in an SS uniform were to point out that Kamala Harris is just as complicit in the palestinian genocide as Trump is, would you dismiss the argument outright, due to the dress of the man?”
While all critique rests upon opinion, not all opinion is critique.
And I’m saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go “yeah I don’t trust the enquirer” and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.
Surely you don’t trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
In that case you’re just willfully misinterpreting clear language. Speaking like that “X is not treated in Y way” is commonly understood to have an implicit “should” substituting “is”. If your grasp of the English language is at the level youre demonstrating here, then you would also know that common parlance. So an extra level of being disingenuous.
On top of that youre still doing the thing wrong. Youre not presenting criticism in your analogy, but an opinion.