comment: >
  
  Totally agree, seems like a popular enough opinion, so downvote.
context: The amount of people who just read an article's title... never even the whole article... let alone never trace it back to primary source documents. And THEN on top of it, they go on social media and spread what they read like it's the gospel truth. It drives me effing insane. >
  
  OMG!!! You are so right!!! I forgot to add that!!! >
  
  Oh, I hate it so much. It's gone on for years and on both sides of the political spectrum. >
  
  I completely agree. I have noticed, depending on what I actually say, I am either a snowflake or a conservative. It's like pick one. I'm obviously not both. >
  
  You're never gonna be liberal "enough" or conservative "enough" for some. They need you to agree with each and every talking point of the most stereotypical representative of their movement. >
  
  Internet searches aren’t research, and the fact that OP thinks that their internet searches are research makes me scared that they vote. >
  
  That isn't what I said so thank you for proving my point. >
  
  Or if you are using Google Scholar, that links peer reviewed, first hand, scholarly articles and essays, which is awesome when you don't have paid access to JSTOR. >
  
  You still you have to know what journal articles are actually valuable. You have to understand things like statistics, sample sizes, what it means when someone has a potential conflict, etc.
  They teach classes in just this topic alone which should tell you something. >
  
  I mean, if you want to get Burkean on it, sure. I'm just saying that we have more access than people like to admit.