>>14855453Everyone should be obsessed with sources. Otherwise it's just a bunch of ideologues spinning stories with no basis in reality. Which I guess most people into online politics are okay with, because at the end of the day nobody gives a fuck about any of it and it's literally just a bunch of virtue signaling and larping.
>>14855454Nobody in online politics is interested in facts or discussing data, because it's boring, nobody understands it anyway and it often doesn't align with their biases. It's all about how you can spin the data to suit your agenda. The amount of times someone provides a source for it to literally have the opposite conclusion of what they were arguing for...It's so tiresome.
>>14855457>when we doThe problem is that people like you actively seek out the most fringe schizo opinions, as long as it disagrees with the mainstream. You don't question the validity of the data or the credentials of these people, you just accept it at face value. Why do you not apply the same level of skepticism in your case? Why do you disagree with other studies? Most of the times your "studies" are worthless, because they either have dogshit methodology, cherry picking their own data or outright hiding results that don't fit their hypothesis.
>professionalsThere are a lot "literal professionals" who push all kinds of crazy shit, but that doesn't make what they say true. This is why we have a peer review process, follow up studies, meta analyses, etc. Not some random guy in his basement writing a blog.
>conspiracy theoristsWhen the entire world and countries that all have their own agendas come to the same conclusion. When billions of doses have been administered. When literally all the research points in the same direction. When multiple studies done on hydroxychloroquine, which didn't show any signs of being an effective treatment. And you still don't believe anyone but the random schizo or e-celebs, then yes, you are a conspiracy theorist.
