Should We Be Diverse With Our Sources?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The thing I've always come to have a problem with is the idea that, because one was part of something you are against, that it doesn't matter if they made sense with a certain article, they can't be trusted with that source. Like if a member of the KKK made an article that made a precise argument against the Federal Reserve, & didn't have any racist statements in it whatsoever. Would you use that article to explain the Federal Reserve because you know s/he's right, or would you not, only because s/he's part of the Klan? Should there be a limitation towards who exactly we use as a source? Should everyone have their voices heard, no matter what their background consists of?

One person that I know I've used a lot before, & I've shown my support for him as well which has put me into a controversial standpoint, was Charles Manson. I would use him a lot when I'd be talking about environmental conditions & what we could achieve from it. Yet many refuse to even use him because they believe him to be this murderous cult leader, despite whether he was guilty or innocent. So, should we be diverse with our sources, or should there be limitations?

[IllicitPopsicle]

Much of what Ted Kaczinski said was fundamentally right, for example. He was just "crazy." I see what your point is, and i think that we should be diverse in our reading and citing. Especially considering that a singular point of view is generally bad.

[Kléber]

Sometimes a source that you don't agree with is the most credible source because those people "shouldn't" be agreeing with you.

For example, if the US Republican Party puts out a memo saying "The federal government completely failed in Hurricane Katrina" that carries a lot more weight coming from them since they were the federal government and have every reason to apologize for/cover up their own role. Or if the UN says "we screwed up in Yugoslavia" that's a lot more convincing than a left-wing anti-imperialist source which is guaranteed to bash any Western occupation of a country.

[9]

Sometimes a source that you don't agree with is the most credible source because those people "shouldn't" be agreeing with you.

For example, if the US Republican Party puts out a memo saying "The federal government completely failed in Hurricane Katrina" that carries a lot more weight coming from them since they were the federal government and have every reason to apologize for/cover up their own role. Or if the UN says "we screwed up in Yugoslavia" that's a lot more convincing than a left-wing anti-imperialist source which is guaranteed to bash any Western occupation of a country.

I think this is sort of misleading. The OP gives an example of using a KKK member's article against the Federal Reserve as a source because s/he agrees with their argument. You give an example of using as a source a direct admission by the government of its own negligence. These two examples have nothing in common. The OP does not want to use the KKK's own words against them, s/he wants to endorse their line of argument on an unrelated political subject, thereby lending credence to the KKK and their disgusting "politics". I don't see how this is at all acceptable, and anyone who writes a paper and uses the KKK's political line on a topic (which they agree with) to back up their arguments will be completely discredited, and rightly so. Honestly, it is a ridiculous idea.

[Kléber]

Yeah, my post was kind of misleading. You're right, ultra-right sources are always a bad idea to quote. You want sources that your target audience will find credible, and there is nothing to be gained from trying to breach the gap between the workers' movement and fascism.

[GPDP]

I've always had this kind of problem when arguing against liberals, especially Obamaniacs. They won't accept any source unless it comes from CNN or the New York Times or something like that, because those are the supposed "reputable" mainstream sources, and anything else is "fringe." So if I were to link to a ZNet article by Paul Street, a prolific left-wing Obama critic, they wouldn't even bother refuting his arguments. They usually go "try not to use such a biased website" and end it there.