Decoy321

@Decoy321@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Decoy321,

Advice Animals were much earlier, in the late 2000s. I remember seeing them on gaming forums before Reddit was even a thing, when SA and Digg still reigned supreme.

Know Your Meme traces them back to 2006.

knowyourmeme.com/memes/advice-animals

Decoy321,

Friendly reminder, everyone. Don’t feed the trolls.

Decoy321,

Obligatory SKELETOR UP IN THIS MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Decoy321,

It helps if you also poop on company time

Decoy321,

My dude, it’s not supposed to work. That was the point of Escher’s art.

Decoy321,

Yeah it’s getting pretty uncivil in these comments. Sorry, op, comments are getting locked.

Cute photo though, it’s an old school meme.

Decoy321,

It helps that their name stands out more since it’s bold and in bigger font.

It also helps that they’re genuinely cool people.

Decoy321,

If you’re going to give up, feel free to do so quietly. Find yourself a nice little hole and die in peace. Sharing your defeatist attitude just makes it harder for the rest of us who still work to make a difference.

Decoy321,

Hey op. I’m removing this because the license plate isn’t blurred. Would you please resubmit with it blocked out?

Decoy321,

Oh hey that was a nice article you shared to source your information.

Decoy321,

Let’s have a quick lesson in credibility:

You should take everything you read with varying degrees of skepticism. Some things warrant more skepticism than others. For example, which of these two should you be more skeptical of?

  1. An article written by someone paid to write things. Their actual name is on the article, thus so is their reputation. And if they’re worth their salt, they’ll also link to direct sources for data shared in their article.
  2. some random dude on a forum who consistently fails to provide sourcing for the numbers, this failing to price they didn’t pull those numbers out of their ass.

Now, I don’t have to accept any of the options at face value, but one is more convincing than the other.

Former Obama adviser: Kushner engaged in ‘level of corruption that we’ve just never seen’ with foreign relations (thehill.com)

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner engaged in a “level of corruption that we’ve just never seen” when talking about his firm’s recent investments overseas....

Decoy321,

I’m guessing you got all those downvotes because people noped out and made assumptions before finishing the wall of text. It never hurts to have the /s these days.

Timeless (sh.itjust.works)

[panel 1: a large dodo approaches a clean, well dressed vagrant youth sat beside a well fashioned wood and stone building. The youth warily guards a bag holding their belongings and the stick they use to travel with it. The dodo asks “Pardon me, do you have the time?” and the youth replies “yes, it’s -“]...

Decoy321,

Holy shit, Wondermark is still going!!! I used to read this over a decade ago. Glad to see it’s still going strong!

Decoy321,

That’s the thing. Once it starts appealing to you, it loses value to the original group.

It’s one of my favorite ways to fuck with my nephews and nieces.

Decoy321,

Precisely. Another fun subtle thing to do is add “the” to the term. Gives it an extra sense of dismissiveness. It ain’t “TikTok”, it’s “the TikTok.”

Or better yet, “the tikkity tok.”

Decoy321,

I like to think of it not as a prank, but a promise.

Decoy321,

Crocs are billboards on your feet that say “don’t fuck me.”

Decoy321,

What is a problem is fake news.

Indeed. That’s why that user asked the simple question. They’re trying to determine the veracity of the information from that website.

Bias and factuality are different concepts. One source can print wildly biased, yet probably true information. While another can provide absolutely unbiased disinformation.

Decoy321,

I dunno, my dude. That’s still quite a reach to go from a simple question to automatically determining that it’s a hatchet job.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re assuming a lot more than I normally works from a singular question.

There’s a significant difference between the two questions in your first sentence: quality of verifiability. The goal here is to determine accuracy anyways. Asking that directly will never get you an answer that you should accept at face value.

If I ask “is this accurate?”, any sourceless responses lack weight. “yes” holds as much proof as “no.”

But “has anyone heard of this” is a much lower barrier of veracity. Answers themselves won’t determine the accuracy of the article, just whether or not anyone can help establish credibility.

It’s important to question and verify sources, no matter who it is. Criticizing someone who does makes you no better than anyone pushing propaganda.

Decoy321,
  1. cute kitty, nice photo!
  2. sorry for your loss, op.
  3. what kind of asshole downvotes these kinds of posts and comments?!?
Decoy321,

What exactly is your goal here? Why are you sharing this?

Decoy321,

I’m gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and wait a couple hours for a response. If I hear nothing, this gets removed.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • provamag4
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • mdbf
  • thenastyranch
  • normalnudes
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • lostlight
  • everett
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • cisconetworking
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • relationshipadvice
  • All magazines