this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
658 points (80.6% liked)
memes
17022 readers
3474 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Same answer as above: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/25676408/14608182
I can also cite academic papers that apparently prove homeopathy works or, if time doesn't matter, that lobotomy is worth a nobel prize. Doesn't mean they ain't of low quality / biased and pro-shit.
Where are you finding low-quality works being cited by MLs? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but ML groups are infinitely more willing to engage in self-crit than liberals.
An example I had comments removed for was Liberalism: A counter history, that goes through the words, actions, and context of major liberal philosophers to define liberalism.
Also Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, because using real data to derive a nuanced understanding distracted from the USSR bad circle-jerk.