#loquacious

Yeah, I could do that, but I'd be doing both of us a disservice.

We live in a time in which arguments are mostly made of tribalism and emotional resonance, and my radical thesis on this blog is that's bad for us.

Imagine for a moment that I do what you suggest. I take out all the relevant historical context, the defining of terms in their time and place, and simply state things to be true without providing sources.

Why should anyone believe me?

They shouldn't.

You shouldn't, either.

The amount of counterfactual nonsense and genuinely damaging falsehoods expressed with confidence here and elsewhere online are hurting all of us horribly. Viral disinformation and misinformation spread so well on social media because they're punchy and unsourced.

It shouldn't satisfy anyone to read opinions on the internet supported only by an assertion like "You can trust me, I'm a stranger on the internet writing under a pseudonym!"

That includes me.

YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING.

You should question every damn thing I write and demand sources for any claims you think can't be supported.

We all seem to know that "trust me, bro" is a huge red flag, but it's still the basis of most takes.

I'd rather take up more of your time than contribute to the confusion, anxiety, and distrust that sort of thing spreads.

I know I could use more editing. I go on too long, and many don't have the attention span for longer posts - but reading them is voluntary and so is following someone who writes like they're paid by the word.

I'm going to keep doing it this way as long as there are people who, like me, want to form their understandings of the world around us based on facts and reasoning, not on tribal alliances, social consequences, or vibes.

Sources and context are the difference between an informed discussion which respects its participants...and whatever the @#&* it is we're all doing on social media the rest of the time.

That's not worth your time. It's not worth mine, either.