If you trust snopes.com...

[fskimospy]

On a side note, it's very worrisome to trust snopes.com to be impartial.

Meh, not really. It has a long, long track record of smart and relatively objective fact checking. No source is perfect but it's better than most.

What's funny is that until recently. It's conservatives and liberals agreed that snopes was a good source. In recent years though conservatives have declared snopes to be part of the liberal conspiracy along with basically every other fact checking site.

Coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[brycejones]

On a side note, it's very worrisome to trust snopes.com to be impartial.

But you don't have to just take thier word for it. They tell you the sources they used to evaluate the claim.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing with self-awareness can be truly impartial. Better to have multiple sources (preferably not all with the same groupthink) and derive a centrist/moderate stance from there.

I think the more dangerous idea is thinking that centrism or moderate stances are inherently superior. There's nothing inherently valuable about being at the midpoint between two ideas.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But you don't have to just take thier word for it. They tell you the sources they used to evaluate the claim.

Then you just upscale the blame, aka the sources are biased, the data is biased, the laws of nature are biased.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think the more dangerous idea is thinking that centrism or moderate stances are inherently superior. There's nothing inherently valuable about being at the midpoint between two ideas.

Agreed, but assuming one side is right and the other is wrong is also not very useful, *assume* there's a bias, fact-check and get multiple sources, and derive a conclusion about that. Sometimes one side is correct but from my experience either the truth is in the middle, or at minimum the way a source was cited, data was presented etc was biased or done so with an intent to convince the one being presented of something.

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed, but assuming one side is right and the other is wrong is also not very useful, *assume* there's a bias, fact-check and get multiple sources, and derive a conclusion about that. Sometimes one side is correct but from my experience either the truth is in the middle, or at minimum the way a source was cited, data was presented etc was biased or done so with an intent to convince the one being presented of something.

I agree, assuming one side is right is never a good idea. It's unfortunate that confirmation bias like that forms the bedrock for most of what people think.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree, assuming one side is right is never a good idea. It's unfortunate that confirmation bias like that forms the bedrock for most of what people think.

IMO it's a combination of herd mentality and trusting the Alpha of whatever group you ascribe to. You trust 'professionals' or those who are otherwise supposed to be 'masters' of a subject naturally as part of human social interaction. Only makes sense that if someone is presenting themselves as an authority on a given subject, that you trust what they say. Continuing that line of thought, if you here an alternate explanation which doesn't jive with what you would like to be the truth, you're more likely to reject it in favor of the other presentation of that data/opinion that's more in line with what you want the truth to be.

After that, it's a very short skip to get to you simply inventing your own narrative to support what you would like, then waiting for someone else to come along and say the same thing, then announcing that person as a reasonable, logical, authoritative source on the matter.

 

[Jhhnn]

Agreed, but assuming one side is right and the other is wrong is also not very useful, *assume* there's a bias, fact-check and get multiple sources, and derive a conclusion about that. Sometimes one side is correct but from my experience either the truth is in the middle, or at minimum the way a source was cited, data was presented etc was biased or done so with an intent to convince the one being presented of something.

Sounds peachy. Now explain how to compromise between fact & right wing fantasy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sounds peachy. Now explain how to compromise between fact & right wing fantasy.

You don't compromise fact. However determining 'fact' is easier said than done, because the source of that 'fact' can be biased, the data can be derived in a biased fashion, the presentation of the data (or 'fact') can be done in a biased fashion, or the 'fact' can be simplified to such extent that the details are lost, and it's no longer factual.

Facts hold up to scrutiny, can be reproduced, and are infallible. If holes can be poked in it, it needs to either be distilled further until it *is* fact, or another look needs to be taken at it.

 

[thraashman]

I think the more dangerous idea is thinking that centrism or moderate stances are inherently superior. There's nothing inherently valuable about being at the midpoint between two ideas.

An individual's thinking should as much as possible be based on verifiable facts. It just so happens that liberal thinking does this SIGNIFICANTLY more often than conservative thinking. Twits like Chiropteran provide ample evidence towards this daily.

Also, for anyone ever curious, I found this little site a while ago that provides a decent review of where individual site's bias lies. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
They rate Snopes as a least biased site

 

[stormkroe]

Great site, thanks for the link.

An individual's thinking should as much as possible be based on verifiable facts. It just so happens that liberal thinking does this SIGNIFICANTLY more often than conservative thinking. Twits like Chiropteran provide ample evidence towards this daily.

Also, for anyone ever curious, I found this little site a while ago that provides a decent review of where individual site's bias lies. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
They rate Snopes as a least biased site

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't compromise fact. However determining 'fact' is easier said than done, because the source of that 'fact' can be biased, the data can be derived in a biased fashion, the presentation of the data (or 'fact') can be done in a biased fashion, or the 'fact' can be simplified to such extent that the details are lost, and it's no longer factual.

Facts hold up to scrutiny, can be reproduced, and are infallible. If holes can be poked in it, it needs to either be distilled further until it *is* fact, or another look needs to be taken at it.

No doubt, all of which just obfuscates the truth in this context. If the fact that Donald Trump is President doesn't tell you that conservatives believe in some astounding lies then you're willfully blind.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No doubt, all of which just obfuscates the truth in this context. If the fact that Donald Trump is President doesn't tell you that conservatives believe in some astounding lies then you're willfully blind.

Most Trump supporters (past and present) probably believe many things that they believe are fact, probably erroneously. Most of this is likely due to an inability to discern fact from lie on the part of the supporter, and some of it is due to intense obfuscation on the part of the liar. Either makes the person either easily duped, distracted, uncaring, or unintelligent, but each for different reasons. It's not always as simple as 'durr, stupid conservatives'. That's as simple as 'durr, elitist liberal snowflakes'.

 

[Chiropteran]

It's actually just a whole lot of straw manning. I post stuff I find interesting. Considering this thread is still active after being away from it for near a week I guess some other posters found it interesting as well.

Snopes is biased. It's obvious and easy to see if you look. I still don't have a clue how someone can be so fucking stupid that they think 500 billion dollars of aggregate errors is perfectly fine and normal and not worth reporting. Huh, what? Are you that bad at math? I kinda hope the people running our housing department are smarter than that. In a perfect world, obviously there should be zero errors. Maybe an occasional error is acceptable, but $500 billion in total errors? No. That is insane.

 

[Chiropteran]

Maybe this will be my last post.

 

[UberNeuman]

Maybe this will be my last post.

You've said it more than once. And that was a lazy copy/paste, wise and beautiful woman...

 

[Jhhnn]

Most Trump supporters (past and present) probably believe many things that they believe are fact, probably erroneously. Most of this is likely due to an inability to discern fact from lie on the part of the supporter, and some of it is due to intense obfuscation on the part of the liar. Either makes the person either easily duped, distracted, uncaring, or unintelligent, but each for different reasons. It's not always as simple as 'durr, stupid conservatives'. That's as simple as 'durr, elitist liberal snowflakes'.

Well, there seems to be enough commonality among conservatives for mass psychology & sloganeering to work just fine on 'em. Trump rallies are an exercise in that. USA! Crooked Hillary! Lock her up! Build the wall! Drain the swamp!

It's the mindlessness of every populist mob/ leader cult in history & nobody plays to it better than Trump.

 

[amenx]

Forget Snopes. Look at other sources of info/news that manipulate 'facts' to keep people stuck within a certain mindset/ agenda. Like Drudge report. The news they report may be factual, but highly selective to further their political leanings, biases or and even outright racism or xenophobism. Basically an 'us vs them' format. Anything not conforming to that is simply left out, especially stuff that may undermine their agenda. And Drudge is one of the most viewed sites that many (mostly conservatives) rely upon for their daily news. It serves its readers confirmation biases quite well.

 

[Younigue]

Maybe this will be my last post.

Seems you'd appreciate a receptive a.k.a. gullible audience so it's probably a good thing you stop posting here. That old saying that negative attention is still attention is derived from mental health requiring assistance to get to a good and healthy mental space. It's not meant to be fed upon as you seem to do by sticking around here.

As to your signature, I noted you said the C-word many many times. On this thread and possibly another?

 

[dank69]

Maybe this will be my last post.

Bye Felicia

How old is that? That search and url no longer exist.

 

[Meghan54]

How old is that? That search and url no longer exist.

That is if that search and url ever existed in the first place.

 

[soulcougher73]

Most Trump supporters (past and present) probably believe many things that they believe are fact, probably erroneously. Most of this is likely due to an inability to discern fact from lie on the part of the supporter, and some of it is due to intense obfuscation on the part of the liar. Either makes the person either easily duped, distracted, uncaring, or unintelligent, but each for different reasons. It's not always as simple as 'durr, stupid conservatives'. That's as simple as 'durr, elitist liberal snowflakes'.

Heard this on the radio on the way into work today since Lewis Black is here tonight. Sort of reminded me of your post a bit.

 

[thraashman]

It's actually just a whole lot of straw manning. I post stuff I find interesting. Considering this thread is still active after being away from it for near a week I guess some other posters found it interesting as well.

Snopes is biased. It's obvious and easy to see if you look. I still don't have a clue how someone can be so fucking stupid that they think 500 billion dollars of aggregate errors is perfectly fine and normal and not worth reporting. Huh, what? Are you that bad at math? I kinda hope the people running our housing department are smarter than that. In a perfect world, obviously there should be zero errors. Maybe an occasional error is acceptable, but $500 billion in total errors? No. That is insane.

A site dedicated to unmasking media bias says that you're wrong about Snopes being biased. Of course since that site works in facts I'm sure you'll say it's left biased ... like Snopes.

 

[fskimospy]

A site dedicated to unmasking media bias says that you're wrong about Snopes being biased. Of course since that site works in facts I'm sure you'll say it's left biased ... like Snopes.

That's pretty much how it always works when it comes to conservatives and media bias. Declare the media/snopes biased and then when actual research or expertise into the issue says you're wrong, declare that research and expertise biased too. Maintaining the ideological bubble is the most important thing, not figuring out what's true.

As a great example if I remember right I'm still waiting for Pokerguy to supply me with literally any source he will accept which would show that the media isn't liberally biased. He has repeatedly refused to answer.