#internet misinformation

[bunnyhugs22]

It’s insane how far this fake story has gone!

[talkingpointsusa]

Tim Pool waxes poetic about biology, "sneaky fuckers", and masculinity....it's about as dumb as you might expect.

This promises to be painful (Photo credit; Timcast on Youtube)

If there is one lesson we all learnt on this blog in 2023, it's that Tim Pool might be one of the dumbest political commentators in recorded history. I figured what better way to wring in the New Year than watch one of his recent videos and fact-check them and laugh at the stupidity along the way!

Tim has thoughts on masculinity in this episode, unfortunately they are all very stupid ones. So, let's get into it shall we?

00:00, Tim Pool: "Oh boy we got a viral video of a young woman saying that when she went on a date with a bro, a mans man, and he paid the bill, whoo, she got all hot and bothered and felt the feminism leave her body."

Alright, so this video was making the rounds in the griftersphere recently. It was a video of some woman saying that after she went on a date and a guy paid the bill, she "felt the feminism leaving her body". The opinions of griftersphere commentators have been mixed, for example professional sociopath Matt Walsh didn't like it and said some predictably dumb crap about how woman are only motivated by money or something. Tim likes it because it lets him rant about "masculinity" for 20 minutes.

First of all, there is absolutely no way to verify the legitimacy of some anecdote that an influencer said in a TikTok video, that's why you don't see legitimate news organizations covering this story (that and the fact that nobody outside of these losers care).

Secondly, who the hell cares? This may come as a shock to Tim and Co but some random woman on TikTok isn't the net voice of every single woman on the planet.

Gee, it's almost as if women are all individuals with their own thoughts and feelings and stuff. But that can't be true! Woman all like the same things because some woman on TikTok told a probably made up story for likes.

How long is this crap I've decided to watch anyway? Can't be more than five minutes right?

Christ....

00:19, Tim Pool: "It started making me wonder about maybe the reason a lot of young women have these politics is because they aren't around actual men."

This take is stupid on multiple different levels.

So, according to Tim feminists are feminists because they haven't met the "right guy". To reach this conclusion you have to be extremely ignorant of feminism and really women in general. The feminism movement is about equal rights for women, some examples of some of the things a feminist might strive towards would be ending gender pay gaps or reducing sexual violence against women. Saying that women are feminists because of a lack of masculinity is essentially reducing all the challenges that women face due to a misogynistic society while also saying that women don't have autonomy outside of the men that they are around.

Tim is also categorizing men into "real men" and "fake men". This mindset has been pervasive throughout our society and has done nothing but damage the self-esteem and mental health of young males who don't fit that extremely linear idea of what a "real man" is. The fact of the matter is that not all men fit that idea but that's ok, there are many different paths to being a good person and if you are a good person that's all that matters at the end of the day.

0:52, Tim Pool: "I think a lot of younger women are surrounded by these low-t loser guys who are super effeminate and think that the media tells them what women actually want, in that they go on dates and say 'do you wanna split the bill?' and women are like 'sure'."

Some people are just naturally born with lower testosterone levels than other ones and that's ok, you can't just categorize somebody as a loser just because they have lower testosterone or are more effeminate.

Besides, the ideas of masculine and feminine men are just made up social constructs anyway. The day we start to judge people by their character and not these constructs of masculinity and femininity is the day society improves as a whole.

The media is also not telling men that they should split the bill, I'm pretty sure it's still considered good form for a man to pick up the tab on the first date.

01:21, Tim Pool: "Now in biology this term is called 'sneaky fucker', I am not making that up, it is quite literally the actual academic term."

The term is actually "kleptogyny" and the term sneaky fucker is more just an expression used to describe it (although I've also heard it applied to kleptogamy, shows how relatively obscure and unused the term sneaky fucker is in academia) . Tim is also using it completely incorrectly.

kleptogyny is a zoology term where males with less attractive characteristics copulate with a female in a harem while the male who is running the harem isn't looking. Couple problems with Tim's usage of it here.

The most obvious issue is that women aren't herd animals who don't have individual personalities outside of the pack, women have individual personalities and sexual preferences. Some women might like quote on quote "effeminate" men and some women might like the type of men that Tim seems to think that every single woman is into.

This term only applies if Tim thinks all women are dumb herd animals and if that's the case he's a detestable person. I personally think what's going on here is a little of Tim being a misogynist and a bit of Tim being a dumbass talking shit, not that that makes it any better.

1:30, Tim Pool: "So in biology they have this idea of the attractive male, the female seeking the male. Ah cardinals cardinal, you've seen cardinals, beautiful birds, very red. Ah but alas only the males are red. Why? The bright colors are to show off and attract the female. The females tend to be brown, more plain looking. But there's another reason why the males are bright red, to attract predators. You know I wondered about that, it's winter, there's snow everywhere, and there's these red birds everywhere that easily stand out. Because when the predators seek to strike they are drawn to the male and not the female and the female has the babies, the babies survive."

I am slightly used to Tim Pool's inane ramblings after I listened to one hour of him for this blog and it nearly broke my brain, however I ask again; WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?! Why the hell are we talking about cardinals?!

This kind of stupid tangent is how Tim distracts from the fact that his points are completely ridiculous and have no basis in facts or even basic reality. While he isn't one in the kleptogyny sense, Tim Pool is a sneaky fucker (as are all of the grifters and hacks we talk about on this blog).

Anyway, he's right that scientific evidence backs up male cardinals being red to attract mates but he's completely off base about it being a way to attract predators. I found absolutely nothing saying that which makes me think that Tim just pulled that "fact" out of his ass.

How is this supposed to apply to human males by the way? So we're supposed to wear bright colors to attract females and uhhh....hope those bright colors attract muggers and criminals so that they kill you and the females babies are protected? Stepping in and protecting your partner is something I can get behind but dressing up like a pickup artist and not fighting back against an attacker are both stupid.

02:12, Tim Pool: Now in biology you also have the concept of the sneaky fucker. That is, there is a high value male that dances for the female, you know (how) birds do those dance, I love watching those nature videos where the birds are like they dance, it proves their value or whatever. But then you have the very strong males and they win over all the females and reproduce. The sneaky fucker is the lesser male who in the middle of the night sneaks in a lay to pass on it's genes."

I mean, kind of. Kleptogyny isn't necessarily sneaking in during the middle of the night, as a matter of fact it's mostly scene when the alpha male of a pack is distracted by another rival.

This again doesn't really apply to human males unless you assume that women are all attracted to the same type of male and that human males are sorted into objective categories of good men and bad men.

What would a human example of kleptogyny even look like? All the made up examples I could think of were dumb because they immediately remove any and all human agency from the equation from both the males and the females. It also ignores the existence of LGBTQ+ people who aren't only interested in male + female like straight people are.

02:44, Tim Pool: "I'm imagining this, I'm wondering I should say, if this young woman, she looks like she's in her 20's, has only been around sneaky fucker types. Male feminists, low-t weak men lacking passion and ambition. Men who don't get up, don't exercise, don't improve themselves and she thought 'this is what men are'."

So, those types of men don't apply to the definition of kleptogyny. The closest application I can think of would be a man who slips a woman a date rape drug while her boyfriend is distracted and rapes her and that's WAY too evil of an act to simply be labeled as kleptogyny.

Come to think of it, paying for a meal isn't even an alpha male move in Tim's imaginary cartoon version of reality. Any male can do that, even the ones that Tim described.

What's wrong with male feminists by the way? Would Tim rather we go back to the 1950's style "get back in the kitchen" way of treating woman? Not every male feminist is a whiny loser like Tim seems to think.

Tim's thought process whenever he sees a male feminist seems to be "Respecting women? Psh, loser."

3:04, Tim Pool: "Perhaps one of the big reasons many women are claiming to be LGBTQ is because they're not feeling strong attraction to males because they're not actually encountering real masculinity for which they're attracted to."

That's not how sexuality works. A woman doesn't become attracted to other women because she hasn't met the kind of male she'd be attracted to. The internet exists for one, odds are those women would find footage of the type of guy they are attracted to and realize that they are cis women. It's also extremely unlikely that those women would be alive for 20+ years and never meet the kind of male they would be attracted to. For this to work you'd have to say that you can just switch your sexuality whenever you feel like it.

Man, Tim is truly one of the dumbest guys in the griftersphere.

Tim then plays the TikTok so the next couple comments are him reacting to it.

04:43, Tim Pool: "Ok, I'm gonna pause right there. I've never had that negotiation about who pays, never. That's just me. Every date I've ever been on, every time I go out, I just throw my card down."

Congrats Tim, do you want a medal? Seriously, most guys do this, it's the polite thing to do. Paying for a meal on a date isn't some alpha and macho thing to do.

I doubt this TikTok's legitimacy the more I watch it. You're telling me that a lifelong feminist suddenly decides that she doesn't believe in feminism anymore because a guy paid for her meal at a restaurant? That's extremely stupid if true, which again I doubt it is. Her usage of the term "liberal snowflakes" at the end of the video also indicates to me that she's trying to appeal to right wing grifters like Tim for attention.

08:22, Tim Pool: "I'm not gonna speak for every single woman, women like different things."

"That's why I titled my video 'Women LOVE masculinity NOT male feminists', because I'm not speaking for every single woman."

By the way, the reason that you are seeing large time skips is because Tim spends a lot of this episode talking about nothing. Here's an example of what most of this episode is like.

12:04, Tim Pool: "If you ask a lot of guys, they'll say they don't like makeup. I don't know if it's the majority, but most of the people I know don't like makeup. Me personally, I think it's gross. I really find it gross and then I hear this from women all the time, they're like 'You don't really find it gross, your just saying that' ladies it's gross. I do not like makeup, it's gross."

Guys, I am just gonna go out on a limb here and say that Tim thinks makeup is gross. He's so subtle about it thought that it's honestly hard to tell.

12:38, Tim Pool: "Women dress up not for other men but for other women."

Tim doesn't really elaborate on this beyond "Oh yeah, I hate makeup so every other guy probably does as well so that must mean that women wear it for other women." He also contradicts this later in usual Tim Pool fasion.

13:10, Tim Pool: "Here's what happens. You get a woman like this and she says 'Look at the guy I'm gonna date with'. The other women say 'He's not socially acceptable because he's a Trump supporting chad bro' and they're like 'Oh, better not date that guy because he doesn't have social status.'"

In the history of things that has never happened with women, this is one of the most never happened things.

What does the guys politics have to do with this by the way? We don't even know what this alleged guy looks like, forget who he's voting for in the next election. For all we know he could be a democrat Biden loving male feminist who just happened to pay for her meal, maybe he doesn't have strong political opinions at all.

This is absolutely just Tim catering to his fanbase of conservative MAGA guys. "Hey guys, guess what? YOU'RE the hot chad-bro's because you like Trump or whatever."

13:54, Tim Pool: "Because I think what women are attracted to but what is socially acceptable is split, and so you have women on social media being like 'No no, Dylan Mulvaney, that's the person you wanna be with!'"

Tim Pool is legitimately obsessed with Dylan Mulvaney to an almost unhealthy degree. He manages to mention her once every other video.

By the way, who died and made Tim the expert on women and how they interact with one another? I don't see how women in a certain social group would know a guys politics unless he's extremely obnoxious about them and that's a total turn off.

15:32, Tim Pool: "100 men 100 women, 99 men die, that one man can make a whole bunch of babies in 9 months. A lot of work for that one guy but it's possible. 100 men 100 women, 99 women die, your done. You get one baby in nine months, ya ain't gonna be having a lot of babies, that woman's gonna be working more than any woman's ever worked to save their village. For this you have the expendable male, if a man dies society can still survive."

This is ignoring a lot of things, for example what if that one male is impotent? Or what if out of those 100 women, some have fertility issues, some miscarry, and some are LGBTQ+, the number of babies is slashed pretty quickly. Maybe this mythical village that we shall call "Strawmanville" could call in more women or men from neighboring villages and as a result they have more people to help with population growth. Or maybe the residents of Strawmanville can go to another village, get engaged, and then come back and repopulate Strawmanville with their new spouses.

That's not important though because this viewpoint is also harmful for both men and women. It makes men completely expendable and worthless in society and women only worthwhile for child rearing. Since our planet has 7.8 billion people on it, the situation that Tim is describing will never take place and thus has no bearing in reality.

Tim talks about how wolves were domesticated, it's super long and rant-ey so we'll skip straight to his point.

18:22, Tim Pool: "So how does a dog come to be? Social pressures created social behaviors, environmental pressures created social behaviors. The same is true for human beings and eachother. Human's that would send their women to go hunt likely would not last that long, so women end up not hunting."

Interesting that Tim would bring up women hunting since there is actually evidence that contradicts his statement. For example, a recent study found that 50% of prehistoric big game hunters were in fact females. Another paper published by the peer reviewed journal PLOS ONE showed that 79% of past and present foraging societies have had female hunters.

In essence, women have hunted for centuries.

19:09, Tim Pool: "What colors women wear, dresses, yeah that has nothing to do with social pressures."

Wait a minute, wait a minute, back up the bus. Didn't Tim say a couple minutes ago that women "dress up for other women"? So which is it Tim? Does the way a woman dresses have nothing to do with social pressures or is it influenced by the social pressures of other women?

Whenever I watch Tim Pool I find myself wondering how he is able to get away with being this bloody daft on his own show to an audience of over a million people. Do people just have that little critical thinking?! I just don't understand why he's successful.

On the Daily Wire side of the griftersphere I kind of see why they all have some success. Matt Walsh just allows people to indulge their personal prejudice with the thin veil of an "intellectual" (read: narcissistic ex shock jock) saying bigoted linguistic vomit and Ben Shapiro at least pretends to be a legitimate political commentator, Michael Knowles is simultaneously dumb and boring but again at least he kind of tries to make sense and not many people watch him anyway. I don't know enough about Candace Owens to comment, but we will talk about her at some point. As for the others we have talked about so far; Ezra Levant is just the Lite Canadian version of Alex Jones and Charlie Kirk and Dave Rubin are also really dumb but for different reasons and at least they can stay on track most of the time.

Tim? He's annoying to listen to, goes on long and stupid-ass tangents about nothing, and regularly contradicts himself over the course of single episodes. I just don't get it!

19:16, Tim Pool: "But of course, the reason why women weren't working, the reason why women weren't voting was absolutely because men were involved in external affairs and war, conflict, hunting, et cetera, and women stayed in the camp raising children because they're the only ones who can."

Of course, how could I have been so foolish? Here I was spending my life thinking that the reason why women weren't working or voting was because they literally weren't allowed to, boy was I sure wrong there! The reason was because they were in "the camp" where they belong raising children.

This is so idiotic. If I were to directly talk to Tim about this episode I'd ask him if he thinks women being allowed to vote is a good thing or not, because it sounds like he doesn't from where I'm sitting.

Conclusion:

Alright, so what have we learnt? Well, as is always the case when I watch Tim Pool stuff for this blog, I feel like I actively have lost brain cells watching this video. I certainly have learnt that Tim possesses the amazing talent of being able to stretch out coverage of a TikTok video into 21 minutes and I learnt that he likes saying the word "fucker".

[l-in-c-future]

If the perpetuator was a Caucasian, nobody would say anything. Surely not the far rights.

If the perpetuator had a Middle Eastern ethnicity origin, UK would flag it as 'terriorism'.

When the perpetuator came from coloured people background, the far rights immediately reacted by inciting hatred against migrants despite the person was domestically born.

Only one crucial thing the Western politicians don't want to address: the role of social media companies in facilitation of spreading mis-information and dis-information and how the business models allow people to make A LOT of money simply by having a lot of followers.

[radwolf76]

2023 Tumblr Top 10

1). 17,079 notes - Jan 5 2023

Pika Sword Grandma

See also the final form and the reblog from @notpikaman​

2). 596 notes - May 13 2023

The RED DOT Has Been Caught

3). 407 notes - Jan 1 2023

Happy New Year 2023

(When your first post of 2023 gets more notes in less than 24 hours than anything you posted in 2022.)

4). 262 notes - Aug 16 2023

Erwin Beekveld's They're Taking The Hobbits to Isengard was originally uploaded on 16 Aug 2005, not 18 Aug 2005 like Know Your Meme Claims.

(Mashed Taters was uploaded on 18 Aug the year before, so you can still celebrate the anniversary of a different memetastic LotR song on that day.)

See also where I linked to a video of YouTuber Jeffiot debunking Know Your Meme’s claims about the origin of the Doot Doot Trumpet Skull gif.

5). 143 notes - Aug 26 2023

Lucky and His Love of Being Bopped by Empty Soda Bottles

See the followup posts with videos.

6). 123 notes - Apr 15 2023

Guess what kids? It's time for yet another entry in the hyper specific poll bandwagon!

(Yes, these were all just describing me.)

7). 113 notes - Nov 20 2023

Experimental Prototype Documentary Of Tomorrow

Sharing Kevin “Defunctland” Perjurer’s latest masterpiece.

8). 40 notes - Jan 28 2023

holy fucking beholder, what?! ꙮ3

Celebrating WotC/Hasbro putting the D&D System Reference Document into Creative Commons as damage control for their bungled attempt to milk their own Open Gaming License for more profits at the expense of 3rd Party Publishers. (Good thing too, seeing as how executive decisions are putting the D&D brand on a death march.) Also, credit to @nyancrimew​ whose Bingle post I totally ganked when making this.

9). 34 notes - Jul 17 2023

Bonded Pair

See also bonus cuddle.

10). 33 notes - Aug 15 2023

Thought I'd Share The Voids Being Cozy

This was the post where I mentioned that Red Crinkle Ball is Lucky’s cuddle toy, his teddy bear. See also this post for further evidence of this.

Honorable Mentions:

verpfwot’s Miette Halloween costume from 2021. At the end of 2021, it had 428 notes, and at the end of 2022 it had 6,186 notes. As of right now it’s up to a staggering 18,082 notes, making it my most popular post ever, even resoundly beating out Pika Sword Grandma above.

My 1,437 followers (up 25% from last year).

My Halloween Costume that was two scary for the cats.

My post about Billi the Cat giving a reminder that it’s time to take meds.

My Metamour’s short story Storage getting published in the anthology Manor of Frights, and read aloud on the Horror Addicts podcast. (Not that I had anything at all to do with either, but anyone who knows my tumblr knows I’m always reblogging my household to hype up their creative endeavours.)

My Spouse’s yarncraft and art. (See note above.)

Lucky falling off things.

Jinx and the giant sushi plush.

My Hero Forge Creations, especially this one I made for a friend. (I took the lessons learned from that 3D print in that post and tweaked it before I had it printed for her, so she got an even better one.)

The time Tumblr tried to sell me a Fallout Melee Weapon, and the many times they tried to sell me nothing at all.

Both of my Let’s Read Homestuck Upd8 posts from April and August, since this is the first time since 2019 I didn’t have one of those land in my Top 10.

My late cat Hennessy showing up as a Tumblr gif in someone else’s post, and of course we remember and miss Percy too.

Previous Year’s Top Tens: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019 

Created by TumblrTop10

[prokopetz]

Anecdotally, one of the big differences between pre-Internet and post-Internet popular culture is a sharp reduction in misinformation about bizarre celebrity deaths.

Back when the Internet wasn't a thing and most people had very limited access to current information about anything that wasn't covered on the evening news, basically any time a notable celebrity dropped out of public view or a year or two, rumours would start circulating that they'd died in a bizarre accident – and sometimes, those rumours became accepted common knowledge, at least until the celebrity in question made their way back into the news cycle.

(There were weirdly specific recurring themes, too: I can think of like three otherwise-unconnected celebrities who "everybody knew" had died while attempting to jump a motorcycle over the Grand Canyon!)

One of the big consequences of Internet access going mainstream is huge numbers of people suddenly becoming aware that a bunch of celebrities they'd been led to believe had been killed in unlikely ways were in fact alive and well. For all that the Internet facilitates the spread of misinformation, it killed this one very particular type of popular misinformation stone dead.

[eigengrauone]

SEAL ATTACK SATURDAY

[weksey]

volo discovers twitter

[skylookingback]

John and Arthur's adventures in the modern world

[reasonsforhope]

"Is social media designed to reward people for acting badly?

The answer is clearly yes, given that the reward structure on social media platforms relies on popularity, as indicated by the number of responses – likes and comments – a post receives from other users. Black-box algorithms then further amplify the spread of posts that have attracted attention.

Sharing widely read content, by itself, isn’t a problem. But it becomes a problem when attention-getting, controversial content is prioritized by design. Given the design of social media sites, users form habits to automatically share the most engaging information regardless of its accuracy and potential harm. Offensive statements, attacks on out groups and false news are amplified, and misinformation often spreads further and faster than the truth.

We are two social psychologists and a marketing scholar. Our research, presented at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit, shows that social media actually has the ability to create user habits to share high-quality content. After a few tweaks to the reward structure of social media platforms, users begin to share information that is accurate and fact-based...

Re-targeting rewards

To investigate the effect of a new reward structure, we gave financial rewards to some users for sharing accurate content and not sharing misinformation. These financial rewards simulated the positive social feedback, such as likes, that users typically receive when they share content on platforms. In essence, we created a new reward structure based on accuracy instead of attention.

As on popular social media platforms, participants in our research learned what got rewarded by sharing information and observing the outcome, without being explicitly informed of the rewards beforehand. This means that the intervention did not change the users’ goals, just their online experiences. After the change in reward structure, participants shared significantly more content that was accurate. More remarkably, users continued to share accurate content even after we removed rewards for accuracy in a subsequent round of testing. These results show that users can be given incentives to share accurate information as a matter of habit.

A different group of users received rewards for sharing misinformation and for not sharing accurate content. Surprisingly, their sharing most resembled that of users who shared news as they normally would, without any financial reward. The striking similarity between these groups reveals that social media platforms encourage users to share attention-getting content that engages others at the expense of accuracy and safety...

Doing right and doing well

Our approach, using the existing rewards on social media to create incentives for accuracy, tackles misinformation spread without significantly disrupting the sites’ business model. This has the additional advantage of altering rewards instead of introducing content restrictions, which are often controversial and costly in financial and human terms.

Implementing our proposed reward system for news sharing carries minimal costs and can be easily integrated into existing platforms. The key idea is to provide users with rewards in the form of social recognition when they share accurate news content. This can be achieved by introducing response buttons to indicate trust and accuracy. By incorporating social recognition for accurate content, algorithms that amplify popular content can leverage crowdsourcing to identify and amplify truthful information.

Both sides of the political aisle now agree that social media has challenges, and our data pinpoints the root of the problem: the design of social media platforms."

And here's the video of one of the scientsts presenting this research at the Nobel Prize Summit!

-Article via The Conversation, August 1, 2023. Video via the Nobel Prize's official Youtube channel, Nobel Prize, posted May 31, 2023.

[sallufix]

Smol Wallace doodle and this lost page I found?? I found it at the depths of the internet digging up every last bit of Mobillace content☠️☠️ I'm pretty sure it's not official, I don't see it tying anywhere in the books, but I think it's still pretty cool. Plus it's Mobillace I'll take what I can get

[popagan]

Good movie.

(Me and sarrumon were only focusing on Iseya and Eimajiwa and lost focus for the most part.)

[puddox]

Damn ok peepaw!!!!

[pansyofthesouth]

OMG they were crazy for this 😭

[futurebird]

This entomologist does not exist.

I decided to find out if any progress had been made on the science behind why some ants are attracted to electrical fields. After filtering out exterminators (it's so demoralizing to search for information on creatures you love and find nothing but people who know nothing about them boasting about how they will kill them all) I found what looked like a blog. But, who the heck is "James Brown"? Never heard of the dude. Maybe he could be my new friend if he likes ants enough to blog about them!

As far as I can tell, these people are phantoms. That's cruel on multiple levels. If I was not familiar with this SEO (Search Engine Optimization) trick I'd spend time looking for them both (to politely tell them about the errors in their blog... which I would assume they would care about since they love insects.)

But, I know what this is now. It's probably the exterminators behind all of this. To get their page ranks up they need "legitimate" pages such as personal blogs to link to them. So they make fake versions of the blogs.

They are pretending to be *ME*

We are expected to take this kind of BS as "harmless gaming of the system." but I find it incredibly distrustful and hurtful. It's making it harder for people to find each other by putting all these fake people in the way. It's LIES the pages are full of half-true nonsense. It's making people know less and filling their heads with false facts.

And this kind of page is what you find FIRST in nearly all search engines. You won't find Alex Wild or the formiculture forum.

You find these mendacious SEO ghosts.

These fake pages ought to be blacklisted to oblivion. But, I don't see any search engines taking this seriously at all.

Not really in their interest to do that, is it? We need to make more noise about just how terrible these pages are. Fake experts? Fake people? Fake images? Fake facts?

Information pollution & fragmentation of natural networks of human learning. A rot on the body of human knowledge: any search engine that puts such pages at the top should be ashamed.

We had a very lively conversation about this on the fediverse (join us if you've been looking for a better kind of social media.)

[merp-blerp]

I know it's late to say, but I hope that Hbomb's video will encourage people to not only cite their sources but also have a good source to begin with. Don't tell me Snow White is 14 years old and then show a screenshot of a featured snippet from Google that leads back to Screenrant.com. Don't tell me Judy Garland was forced to take drugs and smoke 80 cigarettes a day by MGM and have your source be social osmosis or "Hundreds of other videos say so!" Where's that info from? Does it's source truly make sense as a source? Are there more reliable routes for sources to take outside of looking online, like reading books about the subject from people involved or seasoned/trusted in the topic? I know "Google is free", but that doesn't mean it's always good for research. Try Google Scholar at least...

[glouris]

undefined

Some of my favorite moments from Ragnarok’s ost