Thank you!

Thank you! Do you have any online resources you would recommend for learning more? For example how to evaluate the chain - I’ve just bought this bike used, so I don’t know it’s mileage really

@7bicycles@hexbear.net pinging you because I know you know a lot about bicycles, and I hope you can help. I understand if you’re too busy or don’t want to though - no pressure!

Disengage

Disengage

It’s not an insult when it’s true

You’ve given exactly one more, which I engaged with. Stop being obtuse.
I’ve given you the criteria. You kept asking for the criteria, yet you had received it.

This is going in circles.

If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?

I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.

I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.

This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
I’ve already gone thru why “well this is a famous brand” is not a good foundation for “what makes a source good for a given claim”, but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.

This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you’ve been.

Alright, this is going in circles, it’s obvious you’re not acting in good faith, so I am going to disengage

Allright you’re just going in circles, it’s obvious you refuse to engage with anything I put in front of you, and you keep behaving as if I haven’t gone into every single one of your arguments. You’re wasting both of our times by willfully choosing to be obtuse, so I am going to disengage from this conversation

Jesus Christ you really are just going in a roundabout. You claim history from middle ages is relevant, but moderns history is spurious, okay good whatever. By that logic the us if a fascist slave state, as is every single European country.

Sure it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you, that’s what a strawman is allright. Wanting to engage with your sources is whataboutism or whatever. You still haven’t engaged in any source critique. You speak of studying history and linguistics, but you fail the very base-level tools of both of those studies.
Yeah good some website says they’re isolationist, because they say they are.

This is due to the nation’s strict closed-country policy: not many outsiders have visited there and not many North Koreans have traveled to the outside world.

Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us. Here’s your favorite source Wikipedia here’s the state dep websitehttps://www.state.gov/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-sanctions/. It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you’re not American https://www.youngpioneertours.com/north-korea-tours/
this has already been argued with you, which you refused to engage with, which is how we ended up in this semantic rabbit hole. You keep arguing they’re isolationist because of culture or medieval history, completely ignoring modern history and current affairs. But this has already been pointed out to you.

Youre being a lib and you support lib ideology. Doesn’t matter what you identify as

:pigpoop:

You said the source brands I speak of can be said to lie about what’s going on and spin it to something of their liking.

I then highlighted why and showed examples of them having done so.

. Here, the question “as opposed to what”.

Lying as opposed to observable reality, for example with regards to the Iraq war and stories about North Korean haircuts. With regards to the Iraq war they themselves have admitted to it, the untruths are well known. With regards to North Korean haircuts this lie has been highlighted by people reporting on the ground, showing it to be untrue.

called out as lying have to indicate it might be lying that the other sources anyone else can call out for lying don’t have.

The source “called out for lying” has been proved to have lied. The others have not. You are welcome to prove so - which you do by showing them lying, not by posting some us state dep ghoul saying “oh they’re lying”.

Jesus fucking Christ, you libs are so fucking dense it is incredible. Try for once to engage in good faith in a discussion, it might do you so e good

as opposed to what or who?

What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?

I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation.

We’ve already gone thru this. You’ve posted three links. We’ve already gone thru them. I’m not gonna keep repeating myself. If you’re just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don’t acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don’t interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.

So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable.

Which I then answered. Are you dense?

Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources.

Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.

What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources?

I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn’t going “well I just don’t trust it”. It’s pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying “well I’ve been told they’re untrustworthy.” You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.

could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.

Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.

You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn’t. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that’ll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time

Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I’ve said could be taken as indication I’m not being circular. Is this not what you’re currently asking for?

You’ve posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you’ve finally posted one single reference, to which I’ve asked if that is your totality of references. I’ve asked this because 1. A single article isn’t exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I’d rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.

Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn’t what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.

You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.

because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics.

“You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said ‘nuh uh’”

You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices

You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the “sources” as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.

So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?

Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?

Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.

You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer