Refused Source
Openly declining to read the linked evidence and then arguing against it anyway, treating your own priors as sufficient.
"I didn't read the article, but there's no way that's true."
"Not going to click that, but based on the headline, this is overblown."
"I don't need to read a study to know that doesn't work in practice."
"TL;DR but I guarantee the methodology is flawed."
Why It's Unproductive
Saying "I didn't read it" feels like intellectual honesty, which is why people do it so freely. But pairing that admission with a rebuttal sends a different message: the evidence isn't worth your time, and your existing opinion is enough. It forces the other person into a losing position. They can either re-summarize everything for someone who's announced they won't engage, or they can give up. Either way, the conversation stalls while the person who skipped the reading gets to keep arguing.
The Better Move
If you're not going to read it, ask a question instead of making a claim. It's fine to not have time for every link. It's not fine to skip the evidence and then tell people what it says.
Why It's Better
Questions keep the door open. Declaring conclusions about something you didn't read closes it. And if you genuinely don't have time to engage, sitting it out is always an option.
Examples
OP: "Here's a breakdown of why container startup times are slower than people think. [link to detailed benchmarks]"
Antipattern: "Didn't read the whole thing, but containers are fast enough for 99% of use cases. This is a non-issue."
Better: "What workloads were they testing? If it's cold starts on serverless, that's a real pain point. For long-running services, probably doesn't matter."
OP: "This paper found that open-plan offices reduce face-to-face interaction by 70%."
Antipattern: "I don't need to read a paper to know open offices are bad. Anyone who's worked in one could tell you that."
Better: "70% is a big number. Do they say what replaced the face-to-face interaction? More Slack messages, or just less communication overall?"
OP: "New analysis suggests the proposed zoning changes would increase housing density by 30% over ten years."
Antipattern: "Not going to read another pro-density piece, but I can already tell they're ignoring infrastructure costs."
Better: "Does the analysis account for the infrastructure costs that come with 30% more density? That's usually where these proposals fall apart."