[zorked]

This discussion if quickly being flooded with right-wing extremists. If you make a claim, please, provide a reputable source. If you see a claim being made without a source, do something for the intellectual health of this community and downvote.

[Mizza]

I don't think just because people disagree with the preferred political narrative of the global rich that that automatically makes them right-wing extremists. You know, it's possible to not like George Soros while also not being a literal Nazi.

[Ralfp]

I fail to see how three comments by two authors about rape rates going up are sign of discussion quickly being flooded by right-wing extremists.

If you really wish for intellectual health of community, please strive to cultivate it yourself by avoiding the attempts at pre-emptively silencing your opponents by labeling them.

[andrelaszlo]

I just noticed a pattern in a few comments. Does it have a name? It would be useful as a shorthand to point out this behavior in "discussions". If not, maybe "reference flooding" is a good way to describe it?

These comments make a claim, then link to a paper that seems related to it. Sometimes the only thing in common is the title of the paper. Not sure if it's in good faith and these people have trouble understanding what they read, or a strategy intended to convince people who don't have the time to read the paper that they have science on their side. It also puts a heavy burden on an honest participant in the discussion, since their intellectual bandwidth will be flooded by semi-relevant papers.

This only works if the reference is vague enough. Like the title of a paper without a quote or even page number, or "just Google X".[1]

1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3980010/pdf/nihm...

[vixen99]

Please apply your request to your own claim by being precise regarding what constitutes a right-wing extremist - an emotive phrase and clearly intended as such.

[lj3]

I downvoted you. This type of comment isn't constructive or helpful.