Talk:Do your own research

Dishonest discussion tactics become suddenly kosher, cause they come from a "marginalized" group? Pathetic.--95.208.248.207 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it means there's a difference between "We won't stop this discussion dead in its tracks to relay Social Justice 101 to you, go read about the basic concepts" and "I refuse to provide evidence for what (I purport to be) my own claims, instead I'll direct you to words from the people I copied them from".177.82.219.192 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So they just have to sail under the flag of Social Justice™ to get away with it? Peachy👍🏻--46.5.16.116 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have given the social justice section a bit of a rewrite. One of the issues I noticed was that undue weight was being given to its comparison with the conspiracy theorist section above (potentially resulting in readers conflating the two, like the first and third BoNs above did). The marginalized person's request to "educate yourself" has nothing in common with the conspiracy theorist saying "do your own research"; they are done for entirely different reasons. ––Yisfidri (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

So being a part of a "marginalized" group gets one a pass to employ dishonest discussion tactics? Yay, special pleading is fun! --80.147.221.65 (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between asking someone to explain something that's obviously true (racism is real) and asking someone to explain something that's very probably false. Nobody (except a physicist) would be expected to prove that things fall downwards or water is wet. --Annanoon (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Three different comments from BoNs, completely missing the point of the article and ignoring explanations, and all three in the format of a question followed by a very trite one-liner? Interesting. (See what I did there?) --Butter Melon Cauliflower (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Article undermines its own thesis

This article does a complete 180 between the first and the second section and undermines itself in the process. It's the same explanation twice, only difference being that "DYOR" as a tactic is apparently given exception if you're a social justice activist. The sentiment of, "Go figure it out yourself," really doesn't change between those contexts, making the article read more like a cover for hypocrisy than a legitimate breakdown of why one is acceptable and the other is not. The need to specify which groups can and cannot use the tactic is uncalled for: Clearly, there are times when you're responsible for ponying up evidence for a claim, and there's others where a claim is uncontroversial/easily located/common knowledge and being asked to provide proof may just be a time-wasting tactic by a bad faith actor. That's not exclusive to social justice activism, so it seems overly personal to argue that there's one specific 'acceptable' use for "DYOR" yet all others are for conspiracy theorists. Big suze (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)