A Handy Guide To GDP Terminology: "Google It" = "I'm talking out of my ass."

[Mooney]

Sometimes, people on this board will make an allegation.

That person will then be challenged to support their allegation with a link, what with this being the internet and all.

If that person responds by saying "Google it," what this actually means is "I have no evidence to support what I'm saying, because I'm lying or I don't know what I'm talking about. However, I'm going to say it anyway, and then act as though substantiating my claim is beneath me, in the hope that nobody will call my bluff."

So next time someone says something, and you ask them to substantiate their claim, and they tell you to "Google it," just remember this handy guide. THEY'RE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT.

[rug]

1. Link?

[Kittycat]

2. Google it.

:shrug:

[Mooney]

3. It's in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6136454&mesg_id=6136454

I won't link to the individual post in question, per DU rules, but it's in there and shouldn't be too hard to find if you "view all" and search for that text.

[gristy]

5. Really?

DU rules say you aren't supposed to link to individual posts? Do you have a link for that?

[greguganus]

8. Google it.n/t

[Mooney]

12. Well, we're not supposed to call out indivisual posters.

And I can't link to a specific post without, in effect, calling out an individual poster. So I'm just trying to cover my own ass.

[Gore1FL]

50. Hehehehe

yes that particular post has a great anal communication skills...

[gristy]

4. I agree

Provide a link or it's just your opinion. Though some latitude is given on well-known events as long as they are accurately characterized.

[Mooney]

7. This seems like common sense to me.

If you're writing a fifth grade term paper yu have to at least provide footnotes.

[sandnsea]

6. No, it means you lazy fucking ass

learn something and don't use "link please" as a debating strategy.

[greguganus]

9. link?

[Mooney]

10. "Link please" isn't supposed to be a debating strategy.

It's meant to ask for back-up documentation of a claim that's being made. If someone can't provide that, then they have no business presenting what they say as historical fact.

[sandnsea]

11. But it is, all the time n/t

[Mooney]

15. Well, I don't consider it a strategy

so much as a way of debunking bullshit claims. If, for example, someone says the Barack Obama "played the race card" against Bill Clinton in South Carolina, it's worth asking for a link to back that up, since it's quite an accusation. If, in response, you're told to "Google it," then it's a good bet that you have found a bullshit claim.

[sandnsea]

17. Well others do

and I no longer play the game. If you want to debunk something I've said, you better bring the link to do it or you will get told to go google it.

[Mooney]

20. I think it's incumbent upon the person making the claim.

And if you're arguing with someone presenting a bogus claim, there may be no links to refute it. What links would you provide to debunk the claim that Barack Obama "played the race card" against Bill Clinton in South Carolina? There aren't any, because it's a ridiculous, unsupported claim in the first place.

[sandnsea]

23. Actually, you're doing what I'm talking about

*I* could go find the links wherein it is claimed Obama played the race card. I know exactly what Hillary supporters are talking about. You dont'? Really?? You're clueless??? Just fell to the planet yesterday? Because otherwise, all you're going to do is have them post a link you disagree with and have a link war. It's stupid. I don't play. You want to dispute something I say, bring the link. Otherwise leave me the hell alone.

[Mooney]

26. In that particular case, there is only one link.

So it shouldn't be that hard for them to dredge it up. And now, apparently, that's too much to ask.

If they're going to make an allegation as despicable as that one, they should at least have to do their own googling and answer some follow-up questions.

[sandnsea]

32. According to you

According to them there are several instances. Are you seriously going to pretend you don't know that?

[Mooney]

40. Sure, I know.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called out for it though. They're making a really vile assertion, and they should have to defend it.

[sandnsea]

42. So its a debating strategy of yours

You don't need the information, you're just "calling them out" rather than YOU providing the links that prove they're wrong.

[Mooney]

44. Where can I find a link

showing that Barack Obama didn't play the race card?

[sandnsea]

53. Gosh, that's YOUR point to prove n/t

[Mooney]

55. I'm not the one making the objectionable allegation.

It's not my responsibility to disprove it. It's the responsibility of the person making the allegation to prove it when challenged. Otherwise, they shouldn't make allegations.

[sandnsea]

56. Sure you are

You're calling someone a liar. When you do that, you better bring some facts to back you up.

[Mooney]

57. Asking someone to substantiate what they say is not the same as calling someone a liar.

Calling someone a liar is calling someone a liar.

[sandnsea]

58. Of course it is

If I post something and you don't believe it, then you are basically calling me a fool or a liar. If you're going to do that, you better bring some facts to back it up.

[Mooney]

60. If you post something and I don't believe it

there are many possible reasons for it, depending on the situation and context. At DU, however, in this particular forum, there are far fewer possibilities.

[sandnsea]

63. And if you don't believe it

then it's up to you to post your reasons why, with support where necessary. If you seriously have never heard something before, then asking for some direction to find that info yourself is appropriate. But "link please" is a technique to shut down debate, always has been, always will be.

[Mooney]

68. How can it be a technique to shut down debate

if the person provides a link when challenged?

[sandnsea]

71. Because you'll just choose a new tactic

or challenge the validity of the source or post an irrelevant response or whatever, to extend your link war because you're not interested in resolution, just the fight.

[musicblind]

59. Here is the problem with links.

I could provide a link that says Obama played the race card: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

OR I could provide a link that says Clinton played the race card:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959507/posts


Now here's the thing. It DOES NOT MATTER what link anyone on here provides. If someone disagrees they will merely state that the link is invalid. They'll say the first link is merely opinion and has no real proof in it. They'll say the second link came from free republic and is a matter of interpretation.

I have honestly heard people on here claim that CNN of all places is NOT a valid source of information. Stating that they are bias towards Hillary Clinton.

Bottom line is, if you disagree with the information in the link, there will be NO LINK IN THE WORLD good enough for you to accept. That goes for both sides in this election.

When people say "link please" they don't really want a link. If they get one, they'll just shoot it down. They only link they'd accept is one coming from a source that they agree with and who thinks 100% like them. For example, only a liberal 100% pro Obama (if you support Obama) or Pro Clinton site (if you support Clinton).

So why even walk into the trap.

Even the New York Times has been accused of being baised in this primary season.

There is no point in providing a link to a room full of people who will always believe what they want to believe and who think anyone who disagrees with them is full of sh-t.

[Mooney]

62. For me, providing a link at least shows that

the person making the allegation is willing to discuss it rationally and doesn't view anyone who challenges them as beneath them. I agree with you that this can all be very subjective and that some links can be viewed as more equal than others, but to me providing a link to back up an allegation is literally the least a person can do.

[sandnsea]

65. CNN & NYT have been biased

And the Clintons do have media contacts who put out their talking points, and people like Krugman who have flat lost their minds.

[musicblind]

72. Which goes to reiterate the point.

People will find something wrong with ANY link with which they disagree. Especially statements like "Obama played the race card" or "Clinton played the race card" both of which are subjective observations. They are how it is perceived. Someone can perceive Bill's Fairy Tale remark as racist or someone could perceive Obama's response to it as playing the race card first in an attempt to smear Clinton as racist. Both ideas are based solely on the way someone interprets another person's actions.

All links will end up doing in the end is causing a link war, because things can only be proven to people who already want to believe them.

I provide links from peer reviewed research journals to bigots who hate homosexuality all the time. No matter WHAT they find SOMETHING biased or wrong with the information provided.


Best response ever was "Scientist aren't Christians so therefore they no longer have any moral structure to keep them from lying which means nothing they should be trusted or accepted as truth." (well the person said it very awkwardly in a heavy accent, and using double negatives... but you get the point. People believe what they want.)

[Elidor]

81. Who's the lazy ass here?

If you don't feel your assertions are worth backing up with facts (regardless of links), don't expect us to take them seriously. Apparently the game you're playing is "It's so because I say it's so."

Actually, I shouldn't say that, because I see you playing a different game altogether, and playing it masterfully at that.

[hfojvt]

34. so if I say that Jupiter is the largest planet, or hydrogen is the lightest element

or Pierre is the capital city of South Dakota or something else that I know from school or experience or reading, suddenly I am full of crap if I either can't or won't produce a link that proves what I already know?

[Mooney]

41. Why wouldn't you produce a link?

Anyone who would actually challenge you on any of those points deserves to be humiliated, and they're making your job easy. I say go for it. Rarely does life offer you a "gimme" of that magnitude.

[Hawkeye-X]

73. Exactly - people make the assertions, and they have to back it up

"Google it" is just a lazy way out. It takes all of 10 seconds to find your own damn link, cut and paste it off the browser, and post it here.

[Elspeth]

14. Or, it can mean that the poster is too lazy to provide documentation.

It's not a great way to discuss issues.

[Zynx]

38. When stating a pure fact that I may have heard two days ago I shouldn't have to provide

footnotes and bibliographical citations.

[Elspeth]

86. In this forum, you better damned well provide it: posters make up "facts" here

They make up "quotes" and title their posts with them. Later you find out the person never said any such thing.

[Zynx]

87. I've seen people often just use it as a way of fillibustering.

For example, with many people if I said, "Wisconsin has about 5.5 million people", they would challenge me on that. I think stuff like Census information about populations should pretty much be common knowledge.

[Zynx]

36. Damn right. Most people who say "Link please" just are ignorant bastards.

[Mooney]

43. And people who won't provide them are lazy bastards.

Or, in some cases, LYING bastards.

[Zynx]

45. Every post need not be a college research paper. For example, I don't feel that when

I claim Georgia has an 8 point Republican identification advantage I have to go through archives of exit polling I have looked at for months to prove my point.

[Mooney]

48. College research papers require multiple sources.

I'm talking about people who won't even provide ONE, particularly in cases that are not necessarily a matter of public record.

[L0oniX]

13. Oh go google it.

So I google something and read the info on 4 or 5 websites and I am supposed to go look them up again and post all of them because some other lazy ass won't do that? In the old day back in the mid 90's when people would come into help channels on IRC and ask a question that we knew was answered in the manual, we would say "RTFM" (read the fucking manual). Nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with telling others to "google it" for themselves.

:evilgrin:

[wmbrew0206]

16. I'll throw in..."I'm to busy right now doing something else, do your own research"

If someone says this, you know they are full of crap.

If they have the time to post, they have the time to google their info and provide or at least mention a website to look at.

[Mooney]

18. That's my favorite.

It almost always comes from people who spend 20 hours a day here posting.

[QC]

19. The person who makes an assertion bears the burden of proving it.

That's a very basic principle of argument, but as much as I admire your effort, I doubt there's much point in talking logic around here anymore.

[Mooney]

21. Agreed.

On both counts.

[ladjf]

84. When I make an assertion on DU I don't feel obligated to prove

my point because I don't care whether you believe it or not. However, if someone disagrees with my statement in an interesting way, I'll gladly participate in the discussion even if I'm eventually persuaded that I was wrong.

[OzarkDem]

22. and some folks are tired of making the same points,

linking to the same resources and being harassed by Obama supporters who keep insisting black is white, up is down.

Go win your race without me.

[Mooney]

24. How strenuous that must be for you

to have to make the same dubious claims over and over again AND have to back them up.

Here's a tip: Bookmark a link to a reputable source that backs up your claims, and then you can easily substantiate your claims EVERY time.

You're welcome.

[OzarkDem]

28. Welcome to DU

if you had been posting here longer than the last week, you would know.

Later.

[Mooney]

37. What a strange non-sequitir of a response.

Granted, I've only been here a few months, but I think my mad schooling skills that I have displayed have confused you and caused you to post things with erroneous timelines.

[alteredstate]

33. You're assuming that this poster backs up his/her claims.

[NashVegas]

76. Mooney, You'll Have to Forgive Us, You See, Most Democratic Underground Users

Fled other message boards where we were forced to mix with fallacy-loving, ankle-biting, Freepers ages ago.

[Swamp Rat]

25. No, we want you to cross the finish line WITH us.

I won't give up on y'all, on the real Dems who support Hillary, even if y'all are mad at me.

[OzarkDem]

31. Sorry, Swamp Rat

its waaay to late for that.

The Obama fanatics jumped the shark. The way Obama has conducted his campaign shows he stands very little chance of winning the GE and if he does will be no better than McCain. Aint gonna happen.

I'd rather spend my time working on down ticket races, midterms and getting ready for 2012.

[Swamp Rat]

47. I believe it is never too late.

I predict we will be a strong, unified force once we get past this bump in the road... ok, so it's a deep pothole, but we will get out of it soon. :grouphug:

No matter what, vote the Dem nominee in November!

[alteredstate]

29. And then there are the less than honest posters who get off by posting complete bullshit,

and never link to any resources at all.

[OzarkDem]

35. If you're a DU member

you can search my posts since 2001 and see how wrong you are. Good luck.

Health care reform. Talked about it for 3 straight months, Obama folk ignored it. You're going to lose coverage sometime in the next couple of years. Sorry.

[cbayer]

27. The same unsubstantiated talking points are said here over and over

and this happens on both sides.

You could spend all day long asking someone to back up their statement. You could even spend all day doing all your own research to debunk same talking points.

And then the next five new threads will just repeat it again.

I find that most of the time I ask someone to provide information to back up their argument, they never respond at all.

[Mooney]

30. I have found the same thing.

But I guess I'm less offended by just not getting an answer than I am by the "Google it" card. If they don't answer, then at least it's possible that they put me on ignore, which I consider a form of victory.

[SoCalDem]

39. Or it could be that a person posts something like " Tell me about......"

and there is AMPLE information readily available for the non-lazy....on Google :P

[Mooney]

46. That's a solicitation.

Not a challenge.

[Straight Shooter]

49. Not necessarily true.

I've occasionally had people challenge me, and then I've followed up with 20 minutes of my time trying to find a precise link to back up my assertion(s). Sometimes it's just not worth it when the person is challenging you for the sake of being obstreperous.

If it's a broadbrush assertion as the thread you mentioned, we on DU are free to declare such opinions. It's a discussion forum, not a think tank.

[Mooney]

52. It wasn't being presented as an opinion in that case.

It was being presented as a fact. If it had been presented as an opinion then there would be no need for a link.

[Straight Shooter]

61. It seemed more like OD's perception to me.

Based on anger. But if you want links, they're easy to find. You just have to search for nonpartisan, objective sources, rather than people with an ax to grind or an agenda to fulfill. Start with the nonsense of the LBJ/JFK/MLK controversy and look up Bill Moyers' video on that. How about Jesse Jackson's statement that he didn't take offense at Bill Clinton's comparison after South Carolina? There's another mountain from a molehill. The fairy tale brouhaha? WTF was that engendered nonsense all about?

That innocuous statement by Hillary regarding JFK/LBJ/MLK created a blogosphere-fanned firestorm, ostensibly culminating in Ted Kennedy feeling like he was pushed so far he had to support Obama. Truth is, he would have supported him all along, considering the warring dynasties at play.

I think The Guardian in their archives might have some articles referencing the basis for Ozark Dem's rant. Good luck sifting through all the key words, though.

[Mooney]

67. I believe that it's OD's perception too.

People say a lot of potentially inflammatory things in the context of a political campaign, so I try to keep in mind that my opinions are my opinions, and if I'm going to cite facts (or what I believe are facts), then I'd better be able to back them up with independent sources, because in my opinion it's the responsibility of the person making the allegation to back it up when challenged.

OD apparently doesn't share my view about that. I've seen that poster make that particular allegation a few times already, and I've seen that poster get asked to substantiate their claim and say "Google it" in response, also quite a few times. If that poster believes that this issue is important enough to bring up repeatedly, having a link handy to back it up just doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

[Straight Shooter]

70. I did point you in the direction of perhaps why OD feels that way.

But if you're increasingly irritated with Ozark Dem's "repeated" assertions, to the point you start your own thread on failure to provide links as backups, why not have a link or two handy to bolster your case and refute OD's perceptions? :hi:

[Mooney]

74. Because I'm not stating anything as a matter of historical fact.

[Major Hogwash]

51. It depends on the situation.

Whether it just happened or happened within 48 hours and Google has cached it yet.

Plus, I'm not sure what you mean by "completely full of shit".
Do you mean it's running out their ears, or just falling out of their mouths?

LoL

[Mooney]

54. In this case it's falling out of their fingers.

[McCamy Taylor]

64. Sometimes people attempt to derail discussion by asking for links to things you have proved in your

last journal with ten different citations. My own journals tend to be very wordy with lots of quotes and links and references. Some people who like to heckle me will show up later and demand links for things which I have just demonstrated in my last journal (which they already commented upon so I know that they know I cited links for that one).

In those cases I will often say "Refer to my last journal" or "Google x, y and z" because their demands for a link to show that there was a "Race Memo" that the Obama camp released in January is total bullshit. Everyone who has not been living under a rock knows that the thing exists. Certainly the people I am talking about know that it exists. And their demands that I cite a reference for it is without merit, since it would only make my already long posts even longer.

This tactic of demanding a reference for things that moderately informed people should know is a commonly used tactic to derail thread discussions.

[Mooney]

69. Those people are assholes too.

If you're providing links and research, then I have no problem with you.

[crankychatter]

66. Bush Sr killed JFK - Obama is the Antichrist - Elvis is ALIVE - links provided

Reagan bombed Tripoli in retaliation for "State sponsored Terrorism" in Lybia... only to find out a week later the terrorists that bombed that Discotheque in Berlin were trained in Syria.

Everybody said "Oh well, Ghadaffi is an asshole anyway."

It was page three in the SF examiner... and not written up anywhere else that I know of.

The only protest I could find was all the Communists wanting to use the event as a forum to bring attention to El Salvador.

America slept, Jesus wept and

NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING LINKS.

google to your heart's content

[NashVegas]

75. "Got a Link"? Is So Freaking Lazy

95% of the time, the person who posts something like that wants to challenge a point, but they're too fucking lazy and / or don't feel they have the intellectual prowess to take on someone.

They aren't called "ankle biters" for nothing.

[Mooney]

77. "Ankle biters" are what childless people call their friends' children.

You have that confused with "people challenging an unsubstantiated assertion."

[NashVegas]

78. Quite Descriptive, Don't You Think?

[Mooney]

79. My 11-month-old has yet to bite my ankle or ankles.

So in my experience it's an inaccurate, though colorful, metaphor.

[NashVegas]

80. If the Foo Shits ...

*shrugs*

[Elidor]

82. Actually, 'google it' can also mean:

1) I'm on my lunchbreak and don't have much time.
2) I didn't bookmark it and don't feel like chasing it down. I'd rather stay here and argue with you.

[ladjf]

83. DU is not a court of law. It's a political opinion forum.

If I make a statement that is consistent with various pieces of corroborating information, some of which might be available on the INTERNET, I don't feel obligated to provide the challenger with a
footnote for each item.

If the challenger is sincere and ask me where they could locate the information, I will provide it. But, in many cases the "challenger" is simply trying to prove that you are wrong and they are correct.
It that case, why should I provide them with INTERNET sites that they will claim are not valid. It has happened to me many times.

I'm not going to do the homework for a belligerent arguer.

[davsand]

85. I came out of boards where you posted links or you got run out of town.

All joking aside, I got taught every early on that if you make an assertion you better be prepared to back it up with a link or else you WILL get called on it and probably get it jammed back up your butt. They used to call it "netiquette." I got in the habit early and just didn't give it up.

I don't notice it as bad here at DU, but I hang on a local board that is heavily populated by local conservatives. I ALWAYS provide a link when I'm on there, and I try hard to use links that are seen as "credible" rather than talking points delivery places. I post there under my own name and it is important to me that I be seen as credible. Literally, when I am at work or out in public, there have been people who have mentioned something they saw me saying on that board--you can never forget how wide the readership is on the web.

DU is fairly anonymous, but there used to be a civility here that made the use of a link a matter of good manners rather than self defense. I hate to see that go by the wayside, but I think the Primaries have always brought out the worst in DU and our members. Some will quit the boards in anger and new people will find us. This is how the process works and getting all bent out of shape about it does no real good.

Peace to you all.



Laura