A lot of people who think they’re saying “[actual fact]” are really just stating “[subjective opinion]” and call any criticism of their opinions “[incoherent rage]”
Not everything that is worth discussing has a source. Abstract ideas and hypothetical scenarios (among other things) have their places in rhetoric and communication.
![[Anecdotal evidence]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/75f540ef-d018-44c9-89e2-e7b6d59f1676.jpeg){kind=link}
A lot of people who think they’re saying “[actual fact]” are really just stating “[subjective opinion]” and call any criticism of their opinions “[incoherent rage]”
[[Hyperlink blocked]]
[freedom of speech]
[incoherent rage]
so a way to incorporate sources into the posts and judge them accordingly?
Not everything that is worth discussing has a source. Abstract ideas and hypothetical scenarios (among other things) have their places in rhetoric and communication.
Which is this?
There are more than three things
Actual fact: The democrats don’t control the weather and create hurricanes to destroy Florida.
Actual fact: abortion is a life saving medical procedure
Subjective anecdote: hurricanes are a life saving medical procedure.
Suggestive nematode: