| > particularly when it feeds into narratives This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology. In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust. Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true. Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. The standard is (should be) that these things prove themselves, rather than put the burden of proof on outside observers. It's also worth noting the post that it was replying to said: > My university educated in laws in the UK are doubting the outcome of elections in the US which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why. |