Source Dismissal

Rejecting arguments by dismissing the publication or domain rather than engaging with the content.

"That's just Medium/Forbes/Substack."

"LOL citing [publication]. Got a real source?"

"Of course it's from [news site]. Figures."

"Not reading anything from that site."

Why It's Unproductive

Sounds like maintaining standards but treats all content from a domain as equally invalid. It's tempting because pattern-matching sources feels efficient, but it avoids engaging with the actual argument or evidence presented. Even flawed publications can host well-researched pieces, and dismissing by domain alone is a shortcut that shuts down discussion.

The Better Move

"That article makes some good points, but [specific concern about the evidence]."

"I'm skeptical of some claims here. Do you have data on [specific point]?"

"The argument is interesting. Are there peer-reviewed sources on this?"

"I have concerns about [publication's] track record on this topic, but what specifically convinced you?"

Why It's Better

Engages with substance instead of using domain as a thought-terminating cliche. Allows for the possibility that individual pieces vary in quality, and invites discussion about specific evidence rather than blanket dismissal.

Example

OP: "Here's an analysis of the policy's impact: [Medium article link]"

Antipattern reply: "LOL Medium. Got a real source?"

Better: "Interesting analysis. Do you know if there are peer-reviewed studies on this, or is this mainly the author's interpretation?"