Anyway, I did have some examples in mind from some time ago, which I would probably not bring up except for aforementioned hypocrisy.
The example is the asexual blogosphere, which, as much as it pains me to generalize, has a habit of not citing the things it criticizes. We'll begin with Sciatrix.
So in the wake of the shitstorm that’s been happening on Tumblr this week I’ve seen one thing over and over again, and it bugs the shit out of me.No links or quotes of even one of those times you saw it? And though I may know which shitstorm is being referenced, not everyone does, and hardly anyone knows which part of the shitstorm it was.
There were lots of other examples (found through Sciatrix' excellent linkspams) about the same drama which similarly failed to provide links or quotes:
Where the fuck is all this ‘heteroromantic aces can’t call themselves queer’ BS coming from? [The title of this post. The question remains unanswered, since no links are provided.]There are plenty more, not all having to do with the same drama, but that's probably enough--I already feel like a blogging-etiquette nazi. Hell, let's throw in one more recent example for good measure.
So there is a situation I’ve ran in to quite a few times that I find rather ironic, and I noticed it just recently from some of the bullies/trolls on tumblr.
[From here. No links provided when there is a clear opportunity.]
...there's been some massive awfulness directed at asexuals on tumblr and some big livejournal communities I shall not name over the past few weeks...
[Kaz at least has some conviction about not linking drama]
Sooo I know some of you saw that debacle. In sf_d. A lot of you probably didn't? But that's alright because I'm pretty sure the things I want to say here can stand completely separate from that, but I do have a few words to say on that first, as to why I'm now writing a post on it;
[From here. I think a link still couldn't hurt.]
Another big misconception is the idea that groups are ordered from most privileged to least privileged.
[The worst example. The drama that inspired it isn't even mentioned. From Skeptic's Play.]
But yeah, providing specific examples of the views being criticized is generally a good thing. To rehash, this gives opponents a chance to respond, gives allies a chance to join in, shows that you are not making straw men, and reduces confusion over what views are being criticized.
It's jarring to see so many bloggers deliberately missing out on opportunities for citations. In contrast, I have not seen a single post on elevatorgate in the skeptical blogosphere which did not link to relevant posts. However, there is still lots of confusion over who is criticizing whom... so yeah.
Since this is an inherently belligerent post, I should remind you of my comment policy: Anything but spam.