Snopes

What's wrong with Snopes? I've seen a lot of aversion to it on Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/
snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f
unvis.it/forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3
youtu.be/aG1Jd3PF-JU
youtu.be/oBSvUlkB61s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

they were bought out.

reality has a known centrist-bias, and Sup Forums is located on the "Right Pole", so all other directions are left

You're on the spectrum, aren't you?

le nigger communist joo cucks shillary le praise le kek shadilay le kek praise le kek XD XD XD!!!!

>What's wrong with Snopes
They are NPR's endorsed source of truth.

no argument detected

Sup Forums is world of conspiracy bounded only by one's imagination - kind of what Snopes is trying to debunk.

It's buzzfeed, if buzzfeed pretended to be wikipedia.

Kill yourself

imagine if I was wrong
then maybe you'd be able to explain why

/pol lives in a fantasy land and anything that resembles the truth and has real facts they are just too fucking stupid to understand

Look up who works there. Look up what they say about some obviously true things. They're also very, very inept when it comes to politics. Most of politics is conjecture, not fact. Even statistics, if you've ever taken a statistics class, are used to massively misrepresent data.

It's complete garbage, also cat lady super liberal.

t. weisberg

Hmm.. globalist funded fact checker, nothing wrong there

...

manipulate data to suit their narrative. been wrong themselves many times. must suck to be cucked by snopes.

Anything incriminating the left is "false", anything incriminating the right is "true", and anything false that incriminates the right is "probably true"

it's literally a fat cat woman and her cuck husband.

Snopes factchecks not a statement, but what a statement implies which is inherently subjective. Hence, Snopes can take something that is 100% true and then call it "Mostly False" for being "misleading".

it used to be a good, simple little website that would do amateur research into urban myths, and either refute them or finds bits of truth to them. then a bit ago it turned into full on CTR shill, then just a general leftist shill site. before, it had nothing to do with politics, and the website looked completely different. it was supposedly run by a guy and his wife. now it's literal paid shills.

(((((SNOPES))))) is literally run by a LEFTIST JEW that blew the money the dumb goyim donated to him on hookers, then had the chutzpah to ask for more donations later. And it worked, the retarded cattle obliged.

Snopes is consistently right wing in its assumptions so I don't know why /pol wouldn't like it.

Because they say that retarded conspiracy theories aren't true.

I couldn't find any Snopes articles on Snopes having a left leaning agenda so I'm going to have to label this as fake news :/

Burden of proof is on you, sweetie... I'd suggest that you buy a brain first since clearly you born without one.

Sup Forums hates it when their alternative facts get debunked

>reality has a known centrist-bias
Golden mean fallacy

Horse shit you fucking swecuck. Reality is reality, you have a "centerist bias".

Look at how they "debunked" CNN's fake rescue in Houston.

Snopes is a liberal-run organization which promotes liberal lies. Fake information.

(((snopes)))

Their contributors are known to mischaracterize popular right-wing views to discredit them.

They interviewed Moldylocks to get her account of the events at Berkeley:
snopes.com/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

What's irritating here is that the Snopes article concludes the photo isn't doctored, but debunks the claim that it was full of explosives. I haven't heard anybody claim it was full of anything -- just that she was using it (and other empty bottles) as a weapon. So they cheerfully exonerate her from the thing no-one claims she did.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idiot that wrote the blog post they're sourcing the claim was just a matter of the sort of Chinese whispers bullshit that comes from things like that stupid dishonest article there was a slapfight about earlier on in the thread, where someone not caring about firecrackers turns into advocating throwing explosives which turns into "she made bomb threats" or "she was throwing IEDs".

Normally I'd say that they should be commended for going through the effort to debunk absurd claims, but given that the source of the claims is A guy with

lol! so you trust a website to check facts for you because you're too lazy to google something for 10 minutes?! Okay. Looks good to me.

snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

Ohh, fucking pol! SEE, IT"S ALL FALSE!

There isn't much proof out there, only speculation.

Besides, reality ~does~ have a liberal bias!

*sips tea*

It is run by a pair of liberals whose research consists of hitting I Feel Lucky on google. They ignore evidence to the contrary and frequently use strawmen arguments to debunk claims, for example they find a photoshop of young Soros in an SS uniform, point out that he wasn't old enough and boom, the whole Soros worked for the Nazis argument is "debunked"

>Implying it even happened

Pizzagate is the prime example: they prove that the people were not literally fucking and killing kids on the ping pong tables in the shop and Alefantis said they did not even have a basement, therefore the whole argument is debunked.

Chokes on tea bag. Tells bf to get up.

Oh sweetie, you completely ignored the heart of my post! Silly you :/

*sips tea*

/pol is allergic to facts. Anything they dont like is "fake news"

forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f

What if we archive it
unvis.it/forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f

>/pol is allergic to facts. Anything they dont like is "fake news"
which is, of course, fake news. Do you work for Snopes?

...

fallacy fallacy

I'm not a centrist.
I'm far-right, and I don't really care about the hows and whys of society and mass psychology. Given enough force, the masses will yield.

Snopes refuses to be archived, so the Wayback Machine has nothing.

Page about Disney stealing the idea for "The Lion King" from Osamu Tezuka's "Jungle Emperor Leo" baleeted,

Funny how they have full cooperation from Disney now.

>cat lady super liberal
It's the collision between hookers-and-blow guy and the cat lady. Fuck Snopes and fuck anyone that believes their garbage, especially about politics.

you have to go back
>/pol
why do you losers come here and bitch? go back.

1. Only sentient things can have a bias of any kind.
2. Reality is not a sentient thing.
3. Therefore reality cannot have a bias of any kind.
4. A liberal bias is a kind of bias.
5. Therefore reality cannot have a liberal bias.
6. What cannot happen does not happen.
7. Therefore reality does not have a liberal bias... sweetie :^)
Oh geez, citing a fallacy isn't a fallacy fallacy, you fucking braindead spastic. A fallacy fallacy is calling a conclusion false because the reasoning is fallacious. The purpose of citing your unsound reasoning is to show that there is no reason to accept your conclusion. It can still be correct by accident, but not by anything you said.

Are you really so stupid that you thought fallacies can be excused by citing "fallacy fallacy"? Sup Forums is 18+

Sup Forums spreads and creates right leaning propaganda. Snopes debunks right leaning propaganda and mostly leaves left wing propaganda unexamined

Soros-funded.

I hate the word "debunked" because it implies what is actually true can be affected by our conclusions (it can't). Everything is an ongoing debate. Nothing is "debunked;" at least -- ideas are not "debunked."

No. fuck of you cucked cunt.

snopes dump?

debunking is about removing the "bunk" from something. False claims certainly can be debunked. Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"- thats a Trumpian Logical Fallacy.

Yep

Snopes has had absolutely no credibility since the election for reason that would be very obvious to you if you weren't a blatant shill.

...

It's run by Jews who supported, donated, and campaigned for Hillary. What do you think is wrong with it?

I heard that Snopes debunked claims that Assad was using gas weapons - until he did use them (according to the MSM).

That's the problem with the website, the finality with which they declare things is inappropriate for ongoing situations. Often times I feel like they will debunk things way too early than is appropriate.

fallacy fallacy fallacy

>Setteled science
Is another good one too

fallacy((nfallacy^fallacy(fallacy/fallacy^3))
)

if nothing else is presented as an argument, nothing can be pointed out but the fallacy

fallacy fallacy fallacy only applies if the fallacy fallacy statement was made incorrectly based off a statement that combined a fallacy and an actual argument. my comment did not constitute a fallacy fallacy fallacy as the fallacy fallacy comment I made was regarding a comment merely pointing out a fallacy.

>Run by an impartial Democrat
>Impartial Democrat staff
>Doesn't credit writers and researchers on its articles; no accountability, can't check for expertise or conflicts of interest
>Doesn't respond to fact checks
>Doesn't allow comments
>Numerous examples of bullshit and truth manipulation
>All this while claiming to be an authority on the objective truth

Take for example the article about Clinton freeing a child rapist. They re-frame it into a claim that Hillary Clinton "laughed about freeing a rapist" and judge it "Mostly False". Ignore the fact that she admitted on tape to knowingly getting a child rapist off the hook, and that they even provide this tape. It's "mostly false" because some random internet image exaggerated her response.

Many statements which require fact checking are coded in rhetoric. The meaning of this rhetoric has to be taken as an assumption or else evaluating it would be meaningless. This triggers the kids who try and obfuscate truth by use of rhetoric.

>Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"- thats a Trumpian Logical Fallacy.

There certainly can be an ongoing debate, in which case you have to distinguish between a "Good Guess" and a "100% True Fact."

Sometimes you do not know the truth and all you can do is present a good guess. However, you should not misrepresent your good guess as a 100% true fact.

It acts as an arbiter of what's true and false, when the data itself on the topics they cover is limited. It's more so what topics they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover and frame them. Where something leans is fairly subjective, but it's never wrong to question someone or something purporting to determine what is truth.

Big problem is when data is limited. They create and debunk very specific assertions. This frames the argument in a different light more akin to a more left-leaning, liberal mindset, even when there may be truth to original questions being asked had they been framed differently. Perfect example of this is the supposed "fact checking" during the presidential election. It's become more and more apparent over the past year, as everyone becomes polarized in their political views. The refusal to archive their information is also sketchy. Figures lie and liars figure.

>False claims certainly can be debunked. Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"
This is called appealing to the stone. Nothing can be known for certain, thus the ongoing debate. People who think they know are idiots. For all you know, you could be a brain in a vat. Do trees make a sound if they fall and no one is around to hear them? You don't know that they do. You may think it's unlikely, but that isn't a consequence of a quantified probability, therefore it is a consequence of cognitive bias. You can't even prove you exist -- why should I believe you if you say something's debunked? Why believe anyone -- based on their credentials? What degree must one get in order for their conclusion that they've debunked something to be 100% accurate and undeniably true? A doctorate? Your notion that things can be "debunked" is based on arbitrary assumptions.

>Nothing can be known for certain

really? what is 1+1?

fuck off with this larping BS.

It is known for certain that you are a dumbshit of the highest order. Any attempt to deny this or strawman your way out of it will be a logical fallacy and you should simply kys as quickly as possible.

Ok, so try reading it.

Snopes is just another in a long line of websites/institutions/persons who want intellectual authority so much they are willing to fabricate it

the only reason snopes is considered more reputable than wikipedia or any other website is because its owners are well-cnnected liberals. that's all

Thank you m8ee.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that reality is sentient and that we only exist as self aware extensions of the intention of all that IS. Your concepts of what can/cannot happen are bounded by simulated linear time and the physical world that you are allowed to perceive and make sense of by your 5 senses. The very things you believe cannot happen are actually happening right now, always have been happening, and always will happen whether or not the first person subjective YOU ever observes them.

>lrn2Tralfamadorian

I remember back in the day it was this goofy urban legends debunking site that looked like it was designed by and for gullible middle aged housewives on the net who get email chains about want to see if they're real. Wish I had a screen shot of the original site. It looks fucking ridiculous. Little clip art cartoons as bullet points, dumb "gotcha" jokes at the end of every myth they "debunk", you could tell it wasn't a serious site at all, more like a gossip circle of sorts.

I don't know when or why they got into politics.

>fuck off with this larping BS.

Why are you being so obtuse? This isn't hard to understand, here is an example:

Very early on, some fact checkers had thoroughly debunked the claim that Hillary Clinton has handed debate questions by that black woman in the DNC. Later on, it was learned that the black woman did indeed give Clinton the debate questions.

That's a problem you're going to run into if you claim to be a website that "debunks" things and your knee-jerk reaction biases get you in trouble.

Prove 1+1=2 without using tautology. All knowledge is based on axioms, which are assumptions we think are self-evident, like the apparent self-evidence that 1+1=2, which we know to be intersubjectively true, not objectively true. So go on, prove it. I can conceive of a possible world in which 1+1!=2, or even one in which numbers don't exist, so convince me those worlds don't exist and that 1+1=2 is necessarily true. You can't.

>centrist bias

Look kid let me just give you a quick run down on the real political spectrum.
>Most people see it as left vs right
>Absolute left is seen as Communism and absolute right is seen as Nazism
>People see both ideologies as evil and try to pick the middle ground as it comes off as rational.
>The reality is that the political spectrum is a multi-dimensional spectrum.
>The reality is that communism is still absolutle left but Nazism is actually center left.
>People who view them selves to be centrist on a 1-dimensional/horseshoe spectrum are actually leftists, and no right winged ideology is actually on that spectrum.

I'd Trust a user on Sup Forums saying the sky was falling more.

>The very things you believe cannot happen are actually happening right now, always have been happening, and always will happen whether or not the first person subjective
I've been searching for a name for this fallacy because it's so apparently widespread, but I can't find one. It is something like "possibly true therefore true." Thoughts, anyone?

1+1=2

done. proven.

now BTFO you larping cunt. Semantics and pseudo-intellectual gymnastics will not save you from being an asshat.

...

I guess it could be a modal scope fallacy? because you're assumption that a possibly true thing is true implies it is necessarily true, but I'm not real satisfied with that.
kek
>Argumentum ad lapidem
>The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus."[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley's argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

>had thoroughly debunked the claim

apparently they hadnt.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

kek is for cucks...thus it is a fact that you are a cuck.

It would be an argument from ignorance only if I were actually arguing that 1+1!=2 by asking you to prove otherwise.
>shifting of burden of proof
Your turn.

Horrible redesign a few years back which rendered the site useless and the occasional reluctance to actually research an Urban Legend instead going with "one person said it was fake, so it's fake".

I have proven it- if you are too ignorant to understand that...thats on you. please dont burden us with your ignorance.

please continue to reply. I have all night.

>I have proven it
>proof by assertion

i remember the old design every section had a different look and i think audio would play i wish i could see it again

Havent read much Bertrand Russell have you. LOL

Hey so uh, this debate, uh, seems pretty *leans in to whisper in your ear* ongoing.

If you have any respect for him, you're retarded.
Russell's teapot:

>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

False analogy. We observe that we are the only civilzation in the solar system, that teapots don't launch themselves into space, and that there have been no manned missions to Mars -- we observe that it is unlikely such a teapot exists. We make no such observations about the existence of God.

Russel would have no authority to assert there is such a teapot. The bible does have authority. The bible is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years that are all theologically synchronous, with minimal, irrelevant "contradictions" that are expected of any such collection of historical documents and only add to its historicity. Its own words also give it authority, which reveal themselves as the word of God to anyone willing to read it as such.

pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3

it's written by a faggot and a cunt

no. there is no debate. only a foolish larper who tries too hard to be a contrarian. the debate is only in your head. Its the only way you will win.

so much shilling in this thread for (((snopes)))

(((they))) are here

youtu.be/aG1Jd3PF-JU

youtu.be/oBSvUlkB61s

The "debate" is objective reality which can't be known. Whether you refuse to listen is irrelevant.

they post facts that goes against my world view and even use citations

>a biased fact-checker
Gee, I wonder whats wrong with snopes.