PDA

View Full Version : On Substantiating Claims, Sources & Credibility



Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 09:52 AM
One thing I would recommend, however, is that more attention should be paid to substantiating outlandish claims. This is especially true with respect to claims about Jewish ancestry. Not every scumbag is a Jew. There is plenty of verifiable evidence that Jews have been a plague on our nations, so there's no need to make things up unless we want to further reinforce the public perception that we're a bunch of schizophrenics.
If you're talking about that Stalin = Jewish story, it was substantiated with sources, you just didn't give credibility to the sources. Sometimes the sources are wrong, but the only way to find out is to make a claim and discuss it.

Ward
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:22 AM
If you're talking about that Stalin = Jewish story, it was substantiated with sources, you just didn't give credibility to the sources. Sometimes the sources are wrong, but the only way to find out is to make a claim and discuss it.

Just because something is written somewhere on the internet does not give it credibility. One of the biggest problems our movement suffers from is a lack of credibility with the public. Considering how sensitive a topic the Jewish question has become, it might make sense for us make an effort to dot all of our "i"s and cross all of our "t"s.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Just because something is written somewhere on the internet does not give it credibility. One of the biggest problems our movement suffers from is a lack of credibility with the public. Considering how sensitive a topic the Jewish question has become, it might make sense for us make an effort to dot all of our "i"s and cross all of our "t"s.
So define what makes a source credible then. Which are the parameters.

Bärin
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:34 AM
Just because something is written somewhere on the internet does not give it credibility. One of the biggest problems our movement suffers from is a lack of credibility with the public. Considering how sensitive a topic the Jewish question has become, it might make sense for us make an effort to dot all of our "i"s and cross all of our "t"s.
People who are sensitive about the "Jewish question" will find any source critical of Jews racist and nazi, doesn't matter who wrote it.

Ward
Thursday, December 31st, 2009, 04:26 AM
So define what makes a source credible then. Which are the parameters.

Let me put it this way, a source is not credible when it alleges something such as Stalin was a Jew based on the easily refutable claim that his original surname translates into "Jewison."


People who are sensitive about the "Jewish question" will find any source critical of Jews racist and nazi, doesn't matter who wrote it.

What you say is unfortunately the reality of the situation right now, which is why we need to combat these negative perceptions with facts and logic.

Horagalles
Thursday, December 31st, 2009, 09:19 AM
So define what makes a source credible then. Which are the parameters.Credibility is subjective by definition, but I think there are some general rules.
Personally I would be looking for the of primary sources that are verifyable and arguments that are constructed logically. Other people will look for more circumstantial issues like authorities being used - and of course they will also be looking for correct spelling, grammar, semantics etc.

So to make a good point get your facts and logic right, but also avoid any edges that a potential opponent can get its grip on and play a polemical game with.

Horagalles
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 12:55 PM
Thank you, Resist.

Unfortunately, nowadays many people write in a hurry and forget to proof read their entries. It happens all over the Internet. Just because it's the Internet, it doesn't mean everything has to be sloppy. Attention to details is what made Germanics so efficient and productive over the centuries. Let's try to honour that reputation.Like in mXit or SMS language;)?

Correct spelling and grammar is important to get understood correctly. If it lacks the right orthography, people will dismiss an otherwise good thought. People do not always analyze WHAT is said, they also do consider how it is said or who said it.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 01:53 PM
Just because something is written somewhere on the internet does not give it credibility. One of the biggest problems our movement suffers from is a lack of credibility with the public. Considering how sensitive a topic the Jewish question has become, it might make sense for us make an effort to dot all of our "i"s and cross all of our "t"s.


So define what makes a source credible then. Which are the parameters.

On the topic of credibility, it relates directly to the original sentiment. When reading message boards, if a person cannot spell correctly, and use proper grammar, capitalization, and punctuation, it detracts mightily from whatever his point may be. Whether or not it is true, the first thing entering my mind is, "you're a moron, and not worth my attention." Of course, when the poster's first language is not English, that poster gets a lot of slack from me, but it is usually not needed. The most guilty are the lazy and stupid native English speakers, which happily are very few on Skadi.