Snopes got Snoped! Not who you think...

Damocles said:
Since it is what the thread is about I'd recommend reading the original post and the article.
Click to expand...


I've read them. I'm asking you for the reasons why you think their "factchecking" on political issues leaves much to be desired. Is it the 9/11 thing?
 
Jarod said:
So, if you appear to have a political agenda, your facts must be wrong?
Click to expand...
Not if you are talking about two plus two, but when it includes agenda driven opinions that they "factcheck" into whatever they want, yes. Your agenda can make you "lean" your result in favor of what you want people to believe rather than what facts actually are available.

The simplest form, and one of the most effective, is to simply leave out inconvenient truth while leading your audience to the path you want them to find. There may be a shorter and better path, but you want them to only walk past your store. "Facts" become slippery when you pepper them with an agenda.

You can particularly see this in today's argument about "gun control" where one side tries to pretend that the right is for "militias" but not "The People". Otherwise intelligent people suddenly are incapable of understanding a simple declarative phrase ", the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because of an explanative phrase preceding it.
 
Damocles said:
Not if you are talking about two plus two, but when it includes agenda driven opinions that they "factcheck" into whatever they want, yes. Your agenda can make you "lean" your result in favor of what you want people to believe rather than what facts actually are available.

The simplest form, and one of the most effective, is to simply leave out inconvenient truth while leading your audience to the path you want them to find. There may be a shorter and better path, but you want them to only walk past your store. "Facts" become slippery when you pepper them with an agenda.
Click to expand...


Well, like, isn't the appropriate remedy for this to point out the missing facts and why the conclusion that snopes has reached is wrong as opposed to writing off snopes altogether.

I mean, I understand that you can reach a point where a source gets so many things to wrong and so badly misrepresents reality that you write them off completely (I do sometimes - the WSJ editorial page is a good example), but one piece about a fellow at State Farm that it looks like snopes got right doesn't seem to meet that threshold to me.
 
Damocles said:
First... Politifact is not "factcheck" and secondly no, I didn't love them other than laughing at a leftist site handing a bit of responsibility to the O-man. Politifact isn't quite the uber-leftist protectionist and apologist site that factcheck is. That one is owned by Obama's pals. It's like a site that is supposedly non-partisan that suggests which forum is best, but later you find out that my friends created the site to promote this website.
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. Let's get on it.
 
Damocles said:
Not if you are talking about two plus two, but when it includes agenda driven opinions that they "factcheck" into whatever they want, yes. Your agenda can make you "lean" your result in favor of what you want people to believe rather than what facts actually are available.

The simplest form, and one of the most effective, is to simply leave out inconvenient truth while leading your audience to the path you want them to find. There may be a shorter and better path, but you want them to only walk past your store. "Facts" become slippery when you pepper them with an agenda.

You can particularly see this in today's argument about "gun control" where one side tries to pretend that the right is for "militias" but not "The People". Otherwise intelligent people suddenly are incapable of understanding a simple declarative phrase ", the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because of an explanative phrase preceding it.
Click to expand...

That is true, but it does not necessarily follow that they are wrong.
 
Damocles said:
As I said, Christie... You can spend time saying that the group that ran both of them doesn't have an association to Obama, but the reality is he worked there, they know him, and this Foundation just isn't that frickin' large that they lose people like the President into obscurity. They have a political agenda and people that worked for them running for President aren't "lost" in the crowd.

They are on his "side" and are willing to do nearly anything to say he's right. factcheck.org hides it better, but they are the MSDNC, or Desh, of "fact" checking. They are just another liberal branch of the "fourth institution".
Click to expand...


How's about that?

Not one name...

What did I say?

A whole lotta snark, a little obfuscation mixed with Damo's patented brand of condescending derision...but unfortunately not a whole lot in the way of ANSWERS.
 
He does engage in a lot of snark and condescending derision that cant be proven or disproven. It smacks of ego. Its not the usual attributes of a Buddhist.
 
aeprga said:
Well, like, isn't the appropriate remedy for this to point out the missing facts and why the conclusion that snopes has reached is wrong as opposed to writing off snopes altogether.

I mean, I understand that you can reach a point where a source gets so many things to wrong and so badly misrepresents reality that you write them off completely (I do sometimes - the WSJ editorial page is a good example), but one piece about a fellow at State Farm that it looks like snopes got right doesn't seem to meet that threshold to me.
Click to expand...


What Conservatives want to do is to completely discredit Snopes so whenever someone goes to them for help proving the stupidity behind the latest conservative E-Mail,
being passed off as truth, someone can just respond derisively about how Snopes is just another "partisan" site.

Exactly like what Damo has done for 5+ pages now.
 
There comes a time when your opponents have come to the realization they are bereft of ideas and have been vanquished in the battle of ideas, you can tell this happens when every post is about their vanquisher rather than the topic of conversation. They attempt to make their opponent seem small, as small as they feel, rather than participate in a conversation. It is fun to read, and to know you have left them scrambling for junior high insults rather than capable of rational thought.

At that point answering your opponent is an exercise in futility.

Anyway, the topic and evinced reality: snopes.com has a political agenda.

The current opponents argument: Damocles isn't a very good Buddhist.

I'm good with that.
 
aeprga said:
I wonder what happens when you pull the thread on asheepnomore.net.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same thing. I'm just not sure of their agenda, yet. (I've seen both left and right leaning ideas there). It is nice to know that there is an agenda. I like snopes.com... I just wouldn't accept any political factchecking they come up with without first looking at it with that lean. It's always best to go in with knowledge rather than accept without thought.
 
Damocles said:
Pretty much the same thing. I'm just not sure of their agenda, yet. (I've seen both left and right leaning ideas there). It is nice to know that there is an agenda. I like snopes.com... I just wouldn't accept any political factchecking they come up with without first looking at it with that lean. It's always best to go in with knowledge rather than accept without thought.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the idea that factchecking on snopes leans left is presented by unknown anti-vaccine, 9/11 truther, chemtrail conspiracy nut cases. And looking at what these nut cases wrote about snopes with that background in mind leads me to conclude that I shouldn't really put much stock in it.
 
Jarod said:
That is true, but it does not necessarily follow that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Snopes and the other fact-checking sites don't just make unsupported comments, there are links and footnotes to what they write. So if people have a problem they need to look at the research behind the writing and take issue with it, not just write off the entire site because it doesn't fit a particular political agenda.
 
aeprga said:
Yeah, but the idea that factchecking on snopes leans left is presented by unknown anti-vaccine, 9/11 truther, chemtrail conspiracy nut cases. And looking at what these nut cases wrote about snopes with that background in mind leads me to conclude that I shouldn't really put much stock in it.
Click to expand...


You've got to remember that any site like asheepnomore, no matter how fringe-worthy, is an acceptable source of information to hack job Righties, if the aforementioned site is willing to say the right things about sites like Snopes that Liberals use to discredit RightWing stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top