When outrage is all the rage, progressive politics suffer

[BULLDOG]

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Again, no major progressive outlet is talking about this tattoo shit. The entire thread is built on bullshit.

WTF is "tattoo shit" ???

Not sure, but it sounds like a really bad hobby.

 

[flacaltenn]

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Either something is true or it is not true. Or it's partially true and partially false. I''m not sure how that's partisan. If the fact checkers are doing their job correctly, then their personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

If you are saying that some fact checkers are allowing their biases to interfere with their jobs, then ... they aren't very good at their jobs, no? But implying that people should not use fact checkers is erroneous ... you should almost never rely entirely on one source of information, but to just forego them because they might be biased makes no sense. Any source of information you come across could be biased. Some more likely than others. Fact checkers are generally on the lower end of the bias totem pole.

You didn't read the part that they are leaping to conclusions while the stories are STILL PLAYING OUT. Facts are not all in. It is really spin and damage control. You don't DO that to assess the truth on a continuing breaking issue.

And then they SUCK at revisiting their truth meters when more background and facts ARE available. It''s spin, damage control, and justice delivered TOO quickly to be valuable.

 

[John Shaw]

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Either something is true or it is not true. Or it's partially true and partially false. I''m not sure how that's partisan. If the fact checkers are doing their job correctly, then their personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

If you are saying that some fact checkers are allowing their biases to interfere with their jobs, then ... they aren't very good at their jobs, no? But implying that people should not use fact checkers is erroneous ... you should almost never rely entirely on one source of information, but to just forego them because they might be biased makes no sense. Any source of information you come across could be biased. Some more likely than others. Fact checkers are generally on the lower end of the bias totem pole.

You didn't read the part that they are leaping to conclusions while the stories are STILL PLAYING OUT. Facts are not all in. It is really spin and damage control. You don't DO that to assess the truth on a continuing breaking issue.

And then they SUCK at revisiting their truth meters when more background and facts ARE available. It''s spin, damage control, and justice delivered TOO quickly to be valuable.

But you are kind of generalizing, are you not? You are saying all fact-checking is rushed, inaccurate, spin and damage control? Or some is?

 

[flacaltenn]

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Either something is true or it is not true. Or it's partially true and partially false. I''m not sure how that's partisan. If the fact checkers are doing their job correctly, then their personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

If you are saying that some fact checkers are allowing their biases to interfere with their jobs, then ... they aren't very good at their jobs, no? But implying that people should not use fact checkers is erroneous ... you should almost never rely entirely on one source of information, but to just forego them because they might be biased makes no sense. Any source of information you come across could be biased. Some more likely than others. Fact checkers are generally on the lower end of the bias totem pole.

You didn't read the part that they are leaping to conclusions while the stories are STILL PLAYING OUT. Facts are not all in. It is really spin and damage control. You don't DO that to assess the truth on a continuing breaking issue.

And then they SUCK at revisiting their truth meters when more background and facts ARE available. It''s spin, damage control, and justice delivered TOO quickly to be valuable.

But you are kind of generalizing, are you not? You are saying all fact-checking is rushed, inaccurate, spin and damage control? Or some is?

The only "fact-checkers' that I'm aware of are hosted by insanely partisan media. So I don't know. You know of any parallel conservative OFFICIAL big fucking deal fact-checkers? I said the closest I know would be "MEDIA fact-checkers like Brent Bozell -- not petty ass quote checkers that the left depend on. Really all it is -- is to shepard the troops and a different way to distribute talking points. There is no objective BROAD vetting of what was said. Nit-picky partial evidence.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Let me ask you this: you say to avoid indoctrination we have to think critically, right? Well if you were thinking critically you would explain the word’s context in what you’re describing. So who exactly is being indoctrinated? Who is doing the indoctrination? What sort objective evidence supports this conclusion? What you’ve said is very vague and your definition of the word may be different from mine so how do you convince me it is an actual social phenomenon?

How are people thinking less freely? What specific limitations are there?

Also, I find it odd you would think any fact-checking source has been compromised. No fact checker has a sense of integrity and objectivity anymore? That seems hard to believe. For instance, poltifact or factcheck.org do not seem to be compromised. If they have, I would like to know how and by whom.

My take on this thread is that DTMB is cherry-picking a single story and generalizing it to make a conclusion about the leftwing.

Apparently you didn't read the articles posted before this post, Mr. non-critical thinker.

Oh well you should be able to explain how such sources contradict what I said. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

 

[John Shaw]

Apparently you didn't read the articles posted before this post, Mr. non-critical thinker.

Oh well you should be able to explain how such sources contradict what I said. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Either something is true or it is not true. I know Trump supporters live in a world of "alternative facts", but most of us still live in the real world where there are only one set of facts.

 

[candycorn]

Oh well you should be able to explain how such sources contradict what I said. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered...

So before you quote a public official, do you double check to see if you got the quote correctly? When you utilize a source, do you check to see if they did?

You USED to assume the journalists would get the simple stuff right. When I check it -- I check for the context and background that too many media sources are leaving out ON PURPOSE. This is the reason the left is spouting nonsense and garbage. Because they are ILL-SERVED by the morons they depend on for news and information. They need to fire these morons and get better ones.

It's that gem of quote that DTMB put into his OP ----- "Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore. " That's how fact checking and media came up the 1st place. They are NOT indoctrinated with principles and standards anymore. THey are generally stone stupid about how things work in general. What they are taught is that it is up to them -- to change the world. Mission Impossible -- if you're NOT taught how to think logically, independently, and critically.

Interesting...

On June 17, you quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying:

"We have to PASS the bill to see what's in it",

The actual quote was this:

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.".

Obviously you didn't seem to care much for context or background when you mis-quoted her.

This being the accurate quote is even backed up by the following right wing sites:
Fox news: Sen. Rand Paul's 'Read the Bills Act' - Is it really too much to ask members of Congress to read legislation before they vote on it?
Breitbart: Nancy Pelosi: 'We Have a Right to Know What's in Health Care Bill Before It Passes' | Breitbart
Drudge: DrudgeReportArchives.com © 2018

Not only did you get the quote wrong--it wasn't "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it", you did so in the attempt to paint the congress as a bunch of people who do not read the bills they debate. Which was where the quote came from; a debate we had about term limits.

In the light of you castigating fact checkers, it would seem that you could use some fact checking of your own. As a member of the "higher authority" here at USMB, shouldn't you be a bit more careful about what you post? If you're looking to foster honest, robust debate--as the new rules seem to indicate; start with some accuracy of your own.

 

[flacaltenn]

Apparently you didn't read the articles posted before this post, Mr. non-critical thinker.

Oh well you should be able to explain how such sources contradict what I said. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Seems that way to me. It's a clever way to disguise talking points for folks that can't or won't think critically for themselves.

 

[candycorn]

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Curious...The Washington Post--the same newspaper that many on the right dub the "washington compost"...had the following article:

Obama’s biggest whoppers

In it's "fact checker" column

 

[candycorn]

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Again, no major progressive outlet is talking about this tattoo shit. The entire thread is built on bullshit.

WTF is "tattoo shit" ???

Its in the OP.

 

[John Shaw]

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Curious...The Washington Post--the same newspaper that many on the right dub the "washington compost"...had the following article:

Obama’s biggest whoppers

In it's "fact checker" column

Fake news!

... oh, wait a second ... it makes Obama look bad? All true folks. All true. This one guy speaks the truth.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

A great piece on how social media is making everybody dumber, but primarily I blame the education system. Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore.

Did you hear, for example, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, had an actual, literal, real-life Nazi working for it? A Nazi! Also, there was a secret deal between retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump where Kennedy agreed he would retire if and only if Trump subsequently nominated Brett Kavanaugh, Kennedy’s handpicked successor, to fill his seat.

If you spend any time on Twitter, you’ve likely come across these rumors, both of which exploded onto the social-media scene in recent weeks. It’s somewhat less likely you came across the news that both are false. The ICE story had an embarrassingly simple explanation: A bunch of people, including some professional journalists and policy mavens, decided that a tattoo visible on an ICE employee’s arm in a publicity photograph was a Nazi symbol, and began clamoring for ICE to be held accountable for allowing a dangerous extremist into its ranks. But the tattoo wasn’t, in fact, an Iron Cross: As Haaretz subsequently explained, the employee’s tattoo was a “‘Titan 2,’ the symbol of the platoon he fought with in Afghanistan, where he lost both of his legs in an IED explosion.”

When outrage is all the rage, progressive politics suffer - The Boston Globe

Facebook and Twitter, Instagram are the drivers.
I create ads on FB for several clients.
FB emphasizes they won't show your ad if there's too much text.
They diss your ad if the composition has more than 20% text in the image. Won't show it.
Ads via postings from a FB page are the same.
Twitter, of course, but up to 280 characters but still the same mind-numbing simpleton presentation.

I hate what has happened so my act of rebellion is to support newspapers. I subscribe to six of them. And fourteen periodicals.

 

[candycorn]

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Curious...The Washington Post--the same newspaper that many on the right dub the "washington compost"...had the following article:

Obama’s biggest whoppers

In it's "fact checker" column

Fake news!

... oh, wait a second ... it makes Obama look bad? All true folks. All true. This one guy speaks the truth.

Yeah buddy!

In the light of...

I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

The WAPO link is especially satisfying.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

You are bashing the left for checking facts now? Oh boy ... and I thought you were one of the more reasonable ones. Guess not. Unless I've misinterpreted what you are trying to say here.

..

Either you didn't read the reasons I gave or it's impossible for you to comprehend the obvious. There are SOLID REASONS why this is not fact-checking. It's also why the Left has totally ineffective in "resisting" as the OP outlines. Go back to the OP -- read the idiocy that results from folks that depend on "fact-checkers" to give them their opinions and talking points.

Either something is true or it is not true. Or it's partially true and partially false. I''m not sure how that's partisan. If the fact checkers are doing their job correctly, then their personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

If you are saying that some fact checkers are allowing their biases to interfere with their jobs, then ... they aren't very good at their jobs, no? But implying that people should not use fact checkers is erroneous ... you should almost never rely entirely on one source of information, but to just forego them because they might be biased makes no sense. Any source of information you come across could be biased. Some more likely than others. Fact checkers are generally on the lower end of the bias totem pole.

You didn't read the part that they are leaping to conclusions while the stories are STILL PLAYING OUT. Facts are not all in. It is really spin and damage control. You don't DO that to assess the truth on a continuing breaking issue.

And then they SUCK at revisiting their truth meters when more background and facts ARE available. It''s spin, damage control, and justice delivered TOO quickly to be valuable.

But you are kind of generalizing, are you not? You are saying all fact-checking is rushed, inaccurate, spin and damage control? Or some is?

The only "fact-checkers' that I'm aware of are hosted by insanely partisan media. So I don't know. You know of any parallel conservative OFFICIAL big fucking deal fact-checkers? I said the closest I know would be "MEDIA fact-checkers like Brent Bozell -- not petty ass quote checkers that the left depend on. Really all it is -- is to shepard the troops and a different way to distribute talking points. There is no objective BROAD vetting of what was said. Nit-picky partial evidence.

Time well tell on all "facts".
But in the meantime remember that newspapers are held to a higher bar than any internet "news" outlet, and by different laws, so internet outlets tend to lie more often since it's hard to sue them.
And television was ruined for fairness in reporting when the FCC repealed the "equal time" act:
FCC: No More Equal Time Requirements for Political Campaign Supporters Over Our Public Airwaves
Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising

 

[sparky]

Well, this might belong in the education forum.

Lofty aspiration that, hold my calls while i ask the wife.....~S~

 

[flacaltenn]

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered...

So before you quote a public official, do you double check to see if you got the quote correctly? When you utilize a source, do you check to see if they did?

You USED to assume the journalists would get the simple stuff right. When I check it -- I check for the context and background that too many media sources are leaving out ON PURPOSE. This is the reason the left is spouting nonsense and garbage. Because they are ILL-SERVED by the morons they depend on for news and information. They need to fire these morons and get better ones.

It's that gem of quote that DTMB put into his OP ----- "Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore. " That's how fact checking and media came up the 1st place. They are NOT indoctrinated with principles and standards anymore. THey are generally stone stupid about how things work in general. What they are taught is that it is up to them -- to change the world. Mission Impossible -- if you're NOT taught how to think logically, independently, and critically.

Interesting...

On June 17, you quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying:

"We have to PASS the bill to see what's in it",

The actual quote was this:

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.".

Obviously you didn't seem to care much for context or background when you mis-quoted her.

This being the accurate quote is even backed up by the following right wing sites:
Fox news: Sen. Rand Paul's 'Read the Bills Act' - Is it really too much to ask members of Congress to read legislation before they vote on it?
Breitbart: Nancy Pelosi: 'We Have a Right to Know What's in Health Care Bill Before It Passes' | Breitbart
Drudge: DrudgeReportArchives.com © 2018

Not only did you get the quote wrong--it wasn't "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it", you did so in the attempt to paint the congress as a bunch of people who do not read the bills they debate. Which was where the quote came from; a debate we had about term limits.

In the light of you castigating fact checkers, it would seem that you could use some fact checking of your own. As a member of the "higher authority" here at USMB, shouldn't you be a bit more careful about what you post? If you're looking to foster honest, robust debate--as the new rules seem to indicate; start with some accuracy of your own.

You just wasted a SHIT LOAD of words and work because you have NO FUCKING idea which of 109 times Nancy Pelosi spoke on this issue --- i was quoting. Don't TELL me what I was quoting -- I know what I was quoting.

. So first let's settle your accusation and rush to judgement here. At about the 30 second mark...



NOW -- with impeaching ME out of the way. --- THIS quote is perfect example of "rushing to judgement" with fact-checking. Because at the TIME --- what she was saying sounded delusional and whacky. Anyone fact-checking this would have gotten wrapped around axles with how many congress members had READ 9900 pages, or how much TIME was given to READ the damn thing. But they would have TOTALLY missed the point.

Turns out SanFran Nan was TELLING THE TRUTH. Public had no idea why this would be true. But we later found out that CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE A BILL. They haven't written real detailed legislation for over a decade here.

What Nan was TRYING to tell people is that the 9000 was a "fill-in-the-blank" exercize where the bureaucratic agencies were chartered to make all the tactical decisions and rulings. Literally THOUSANDS of decisions with power of law. So NOBODY "knew what was in it" when it passed, because it was nothing but a blank check.

NOT POSSIBLE to fact-check something like that while the debate is boiling over. But I'm sure if there if there WAS a "conservative" fact-checking psychic panel -- they would have tried.

 

[miketx]

A great piece on how social media is making everybody dumber, but primarily I blame the education system. Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore.

Did you hear, for example, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, had an actual, literal, real-life Nazi working for it? A Nazi! Also, there was a secret deal between retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and Donald Trump where Kennedy agreed he would retire if and only if Trump subsequently nominated Brett Kavanaugh, Kennedy’s handpicked successor, to fill his seat.

If you spend any time on Twitter, you’ve likely come across these rumors, both of which exploded onto the social-media scene in recent weeks. It’s somewhat less likely you came across the news that both are false. The ICE story had an embarrassingly simple explanation: A bunch of people, including some professional journalists and policy mavens, decided that a tattoo visible on an ICE employee’s arm in a publicity photograph was a Nazi symbol, and began clamoring for ICE to be held accountable for allowing a dangerous extremist into its ranks. But the tattoo wasn’t, in fact, an Iron Cross: As Haaretz subsequently explained, the employee’s tattoo was a “‘Titan 2,’ the symbol of the platoon he fought with in Afghanistan, where he lost both of his legs in an IED explosion.”

When outrage is all the rage, progressive politics suffer - The Boston Globe

This is so stupid. I haven’t seen a single progressive outlet report on this. Maybe a couple have, but they are shit sources no one cares about. I see this as desperation to make a massive false equivalency between the left and the right when it comes to perpetuating fake news.

I wonder if you have thought about why any "progressive outlets" would report on their own failure?

 

[flacaltenn]

Think independently, logically, and critically.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh well you should be able to explain how such sources contradict what I said. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

"
Radical education reformers have made a point of removing context from children’s education, and to squash their natural curiosity, undermining their capacity to think. They have done this in five ways: 1) by withholding the basic tools and codes of learning, such as suppressing phonics for reading, as well as clarity in standard arithmetic; 2) by withholding the content knowledge necessary to connect dots in understanding history and civics; 3) by withholding and demeaning literature that reveals universal human experiences and shared understanding, such as the classics and Shakespeare; 4) by de-stabilizing a child’s sense of self and identity. This is a natural byproduct of de-sexing every child, which happens through mandates to teach kids about transgenderism; and 5) by promoting relational aggression against any child or parent who might resist this totalitarian program. Radical education reform encourages schools and communities to single out those who disagree with this coercive program as misfits, bigots, or religious nuts.

All of the above would subvert anybody’s ability to think clearly. It leaves children unmoored from reality and in a constant state of anxiety about being socially rejected by peers or teachers for thinking thoughts deemed wrong."


There's some. Don't worry guy, I got more.

"Increasingly colleges are requiring “diversity” training for freshmen, which basically puts them on notice that they will become non-persons if they say one wrong word or think one wrong thought. (For more on this dark side of campus culture, see the book just published by humanities professor Robert Oscar Lopez.)"


"
The five methods on the “Continuum of Influence and Persuasion” are: education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination, and thought reform (i.e., brainwashing). Look at the table, please. Singer describes how each method of persuasion operates in terms of openness, ethics, deceptiveness, structure, methods, and so on.

"


Riot-Prone Mobs Are A Product Of America’s Cult-Like Education System



And I'm done doing your homework for you, Billygoat.

It doesn't matter, from my observation, you clearly lack critical thinking skills,

and I'm sure you're on to the next thread already.

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered..

I think you go to psychics or fact-checkers when you're SEVERELY in doubt about figuring out your OWN directions and compass. Or lack confidence in making your OWN decisions and judgements. I could get snarky and EXTEND that theory to how the Left turns to GOVT to solve their each and every one of their hairy little problems de jour, rather than finding other public ways to fix things. But THEN --- I'd be over-thinking the concept..

There are many structural defects to the "fact checkers"

1) They LEAP to judgement while the issue is current news cycle. Makes them look more like "damage control" for their leftist sponsors than objective.

2) Like the ENTIRE internet, there's a lot of "EXPIRED WISDOM" and like other places on the web, they put hardly ANY effort in reviewing their judgement after the facts are in. So their harsh quick pronouncements are HARDLY ever revised and live forever in cyber space.

3) All the reasons I originally gave.

But just #1 and #2 are ENOUGH to impeach their modus operandi.

These left wing fact checkers aren’t there to check facts. They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version of their predetermined facts.

Either something is true or it is not true. I know Trump supporters live in a world of "alternative facts", but most of us still live in the real world where there are only one set of facts.

The world you live in and is taken by you to be fact based because a left wing fact check site confirmed your bias isn’t the real world. Has nothing to do with facts and is purposely spun to the point anyone outside your political sphere will never get better than a half true even when 100% correct.

You rely on these biases to form your opinion.

 

[candycorn]

I think what Billy’s point was (if I may interject) is that whatever “sage” that someone wants to trot out, you can find biases in their person to dismiss them. For years, the Websters dictionary was seen as the standard. If I or someone else wished to debunk Websters, we likely could find that whomever Webster was…he had a certain perversion, bias, weakness, slant; whatever you want to call it. And folks can use that like a club to hammer away at the credibility of the dictionary so much so that you cannot use Websters as a bedrock source of information now. Such as the Conservatives have done with anything that reports the truth about Trump.

View attachment 206519

Snopes…

View attachment 206519

View attachment 206522


And even factcheck.org to a lesser extent.

I can’t speak for Billy but I think that was his point; whatever bedrock you rest upon can be usurped if you dig deep enough into the creator’s past and simply wish to amplify one or two data points to call their impartiality into question.

Outside of Media Matters and maybe another MEDIA fact checker, there doesn't seem to BE any conservative equivalents. Why do you think that is? I think because Conservatives are confident in the information that THEY have discovered and that most of their questions have been answered...

So before you quote a public official, do you double check to see if you got the quote correctly? When you utilize a source, do you check to see if they did?

You USED to assume the journalists would get the simple stuff right. When I check it -- I check for the context and background that too many media sources are leaving out ON PURPOSE. This is the reason the left is spouting nonsense and garbage. Because they are ILL-SERVED by the morons they depend on for news and information. They need to fire these morons and get better ones.

It's that gem of quote that DTMB put into his OP ----- "Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore. " That's how fact checking and media came up the 1st place. They are NOT indoctrinated with principles and standards anymore. THey are generally stone stupid about how things work in general. What they are taught is that it is up to them -- to change the world. Mission Impossible -- if you're NOT taught how to think logically, independently, and critically.

Interesting...

On June 17, you quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying:

"We have to PASS the bill to see what's in it",

The actual quote was this:

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.".

Obviously you didn't seem to care much for context or background when you mis-quoted her.

This being the accurate quote is even backed up by the following right wing sites:
Fox news: Sen. Rand Paul's 'Read the Bills Act' - Is it really too much to ask members of Congress to read legislation before they vote on it?
Breitbart: Nancy Pelosi: 'We Have a Right to Know What's in Health Care Bill Before It Passes' | Breitbart
Drudge: DrudgeReportArchives.com © 2018

Not only did you get the quote wrong--it wasn't "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it", you did so in the attempt to paint the congress as a bunch of people who do not read the bills they debate. Which was where the quote came from; a debate we had about term limits.

In the light of you castigating fact checkers, it would seem that you could use some fact checking of your own. As a member of the "higher authority" here at USMB, shouldn't you be a bit more careful about what you post? If you're looking to foster honest, robust debate--as the new rules seem to indicate; start with some accuracy of your own.

You just wasted a SHIT LOAD of words and work because you have NO FUCKING idea which of 109 times Nancy Pelosi spoke on this issue --- i was quoting. Don't TELL me what I was quoting -- I know what I was quoting.

. So first let's settle your accusation and rush to judgement here. At about the 30 second mark...



NOW -- with impeaching ME out of the way. --- THIS quote is perfect example of "rushing to judgement" with fact-checking. Because at the TIME --- what she was saying sounded delusional and whacky. Anyone fact-checking this would have gotten wrapped around axles with how many congress members had READ 9900 pages, or how much TIME was given to READ the damn thing. But they would have TOTALLY missed the point.

Turns out SanFran Nan was TELLING THE TRUTH. Public had no idea why this would be true. But we later found out that CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE A BILL. They haven't written real detailed legislation for over a decade here.

What Nan was TRYING to tell people is that the 9000 was a "fill-in-the-blank" exercize where the bureaucratic agencies were chartered to make all the tactical decisions and rulings. Literally THOUSANDS of decisions with power of law. So NOBODY "knew what was in it" when it passed, because it was nothing but a blank check.

NOT POSSIBLE to fact-check something like that while the debate is boiling over. But I'm sure if there if there WAS a "conservative" fact-checking psychic panel -- they would have tried.

That's a cute dodge. The original quote is usually what people cite. When they do say something similar later on; usually it is highlighted that there are versions of the statement since humans are not robots. But, if you say so.