Do you think where you're from should dictate the potential intelligence behind your opinions?
Take pic related for example. We are on fucking 4chan. Do we still have the right to be taken seriously?
>>422721
Analysing a source for quality depends on the purpose for which you're going to use the source.
>>422721
Opinions should be judged by the opinion itself, not where the person is from. The intelligence of a person usually draws them to certain places. That's why you generally get more intelligent posts from certain boards over other ones.
>>422721
>do you think the argument from authority is valid
uh no
>>422721
Breaking from the grain hear. Hell yes.
There are enough valuable opinions from reputable sources. We don't need 4channers opinions when we have actual scientists, historians, etc. We are not at a shortage where we need to deal with a s/n ratio as bad as a lot of places.
>>422839
*hear
before anyone corrects that. ^here.
I'm tired
There is no right that says other people should take you seriously.
The validity of a statement should come from the context and the facts/reasoning laid out to you. Not from the type of person posting it or from where its posted on.
>>422737
4chan is only ever cited in academic papers by media studies people, usually those writing about such "sexy" topics as hacking or trolling. Other than that the average person babbling about some shit on here is not going to be taken as a source by anyone.
>>423263
Well, most media studies people wouldn't know ontology if you grabbed them by their dusty balls and cut them off.
>>423268
Crappy Žiž ref.
>>422721
I don't think so, I think work should stand on its own merits. If this board actually had at all decent discourse then I would appreciate it on its merits, but on the other hand perhaps one of the reasons why /his/ is so dire comes from anonymous posting culture, one can extrude a meme or shit unfounded opinion dressed as fact without reputation damage.
>>422721
Yes, we have the potential to be taken seriously, but the burden is upon us. Sure this may be a Taiwanese slideshow board, but we should aspire to correctly discuss things.
>>423280
It is more that they're incapable of research programmes that could use 4chan as a source.
I honestly think that's the strength of this board. Nobody takes seriously so we can say what we want pretty much and nobody will make a big stupid deal out of it.
The idea of "we're on a freaking imageboard full of trolls, why even try to tackle the discussion seriously?" is probably the heart of all cancer.
The argument and its merits is all that matters. Everything else is window dressing. There's not a task force that's going to bust through my door and arrest me because I didn't include a single reference to unorthodox fetishes in my post.
Not en masse, but obviously if a post has beefy sources and content you can consider it more.
This board seems to be a quarantine like /biz/ however, and may never bloom into something.
>>422721
Chans are the most individualistic places on the entire damn internet; nothing matters except the content of the post in question.
I can tell you OP that any Religious Debate thread shows that this board cannot betaken seriously. Whether it be Atheists shitting on Christianity or Catholics shitting on other denominations.
>>422721
If you see 4chan posts which sometimes lead to additional research then you call them valuable even if they aren't serious
>>424413
*could call
