I'm not. It's become my opinion that there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory. Back in the day we saw Nazis and fascists take these rhetorical angles, because even many many years ago people had worked out that you could seize power by negotiating for victory rather than in good faith. The techniques of this are really long established and not even the technology is really new: back in the day, it was the existence of radio that was the technological breakthrough, and now it's control of things like Twitter and Facebook that correspond to that situation.
The poster you're responding to doesn't appear to be operating in good faith, so the sources are irrelevant: they're purely vapor. You can just make stuff up and claim it, and if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative and legitimized the thing you made up. You can con yourself into believing it if you're a paranoid type, or you can be just out to manipulate. It does not matter whether you're sincere or not. It's the outcome you're after.
I'm not interested in their sources. They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position, and it really doesn't matter whether that is out of delusion or manipulation.
> there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory
Well, how can one verify if something is correct or not if there is no link to sources? Without sources, there is no way. With the sources, one can verify the sources, if needed in depth (recursively). (Except if one side controls all the sources, as done in the book 1984. But in the western society, we are not in this position yet, luckily.)
Neural networks have relatively stable connections (neurons know only neighbours, and assign thrust / weight to each other). That is a "gossip". But as a society, we want a faster way. But faster ways (radio, TV, Twitter, Facebook... this site here) are more dangerous, so we need the sources.
> if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative
And you steal other peoples times.
> They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position
For you, yes. But for others, it might not be obvious. So calling out "where are the sources", and then seeing there are no reliable sources, might help those others.
