Politifact is a FAKE Fact Checker!

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
That there was a gun involved?

Are you saying you think it's inconclusive that a gun was involved?
Yeah, you are right, I just confused the fuck out of that by what I quoted.

No, about what was said about him HAVING A GUN and going to get it.
They addressed that.

"Here’s what we know.

There was no gun

The Facebook post avoids directly claiming a gun, instead attributing statements to Blake about having and getting a gun.

We don’t know what was said, and we may never know since the responding officers weren’t wearing body cameras. The Kenosha Police Department doesn’t use them. Audio in the cell-phone video shot by a witness is hard to discern due to bystanders’ shouts.

So there’s no way to prove this part of the claim directly — though no witness reports have emerged since the incident that offer this account. The man who made the Facebook post did not respond to a request for the evidence behind the claim.

But we know there was no gun."


=============================================

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

They addressed the issue, considered the evidence, and then made a final ruling on it. I think it's difficult to encapsulate the complexity of a story with "true" or "false", but it looks to me like they went about it in a fair way and came up with the likely correct ruling. More importantly, if you actually read the article, they elaborate on their findings and lack there of.
 
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

They addressed the issue, considered the evidence, and then made a final ruling on it. I think it's difficult to encapsulate the complexity of a story with "true" or "false", but it looks to me like they went about it in a fair way and came up with the likely correct ruling. More importantly, if you actually read the article, they elaborate on their findings and lack there of.
Nonono... The question isn't if there was a gun or not... It's if HE SAID HE HAD ONE AND WAS GOING TO GET IT. Of course people are going to take that seriously, especially the cops considering on why they were there in the first place. If he had one or not is IRRELEVANT to the point of the danger he posed. That's the whole point of even bringing it up.

They CREATED the argument to prove it false. Not actually what is important of why they brought it up in the first place.
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
Nonono... The question isn't if there was a gun or not... It's if HE SAID HE HAD ONE AND WAS GOING TO GET IT.

They CREATED the argument to prove it false. Not actually what is important of why they brought it up in the first place.
Ok. Let me get clarification.

What argument are you claiming to have been created? That he said he had a gun and was going to get it? Or that he had a gun?
 
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198
Nonono... The question isn't if there was a gun or not... It's if HE SAID HE HAD ONE AND WAS GOING TO GET IT.

They CREATED the argument to prove it false. Not actually what is important of why they brought it up in the first place.
Ok. Let me get clarification.

What argument are you claiming to have been created? That he said he had a gun and was going to get it? Or that he had a gun?
Holy fuck. He explains it better than I do. I don't understand what's so hard about this.

They created the argument that there was no gun there, so it's false. The thing is, it doesn't matter if THAT is true or false. It's irrelevant to the whole point of bringing it up in the first place.

It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it. THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. The whole reason for it to be in there is to show that he was actively trying to portray himself as a lethal danger.

Edit: If they would have separated those two things... Fine... I get it. They didn't. They actually went out of their way to encapsulate it.

There was no gun...

Says that they can't be sure if it was said or not that he had one and was going to get it, says other shit that means nothing to the point being made...

There was no gun.

It's false.

WHAT? You just said you can't know for sure, but now it's false? How the fuck do you say we can't know, to it's a known falsehood?
 
Last edited:

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
They created the argument that there was no gun there, so it's false. The thing is, it doesn't matter if THAT is true or false. It's irrelevant to the whole point of bringing it up in the first place.
That's your opinion. I think it is relevant. Different, but relevant. I'll explain why.

The claim: He said he was going to get his gun.

The evidence:
- There's no audio evidence that he said he was going to get his gun.
- There are no witness accounts that he said he was going to get his gun.
- There was no gun.
- The person who accused him of saying he was going to get his gun did not respond.

The conclusion: Well it's possible that he said he was going to get his gun. It's impossible to know for sure. But there is no evidence for it. Furthermore, you would have to argue that he said he was going to get his gun when he didn't even have a gun. (That's how it's relevant) That's possible, but kind of dumb and lacking believability. Put that all together and you have a pretty silly belief to claim that he said that he was going to get a gun without any supporting evidence. So it's most likely not true. That's where I see the relevance of him owning a gun.

Their conclusion is worded perfectly reasonably as far as I'm concerned.

"For our fact checks, the burden of proof is on the speaker. Due to the lack of evidence establishing these claims at this point, we rate this claim False."
 
Last edited:

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
WHAT? You just said you can't know for sure, but now it's false? How the fuck do you say we can't know, to it's a known falsehood?
The article you're complaining about explains this.

"For our fact checks, the burden of proof is on the speaker. Due to the lack of evidence establishing these claims at this point, we rate this claim False."

Once again, I think it's difficult to encapsulate the complexity of a story with "true" or "false", but it looks to me like they went about it in a fair way and came up with the likely correct "false" ruling. More importantly, if you actually read the article, they elaborate on their findings and lack there of. You're looking for the "false" rating to tell the whole story. The article tells the full story and serves as their justification for their one-word ruling.

Disagree with their final ruling all you like, but they outline everything in the article. It sounds like they did their homework and objectively commented on all the details in a fair-minded way. Doesn't look like they're trying to be deceptive to me.
 
Last edited:
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198
It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it.
I don't think that's true. Can you back this up?
No. I can't.

I wasn't there, no police report that I'm aware of available.
 
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198
You're looking for the "false" rating to tell the whole story. The article tells the full story and serves as the justification for their one-word ruling.
You... Don't see that as a problem??? A one word ruling for all those points?
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it.
I don't think that's true. Can you back this up?
No. I can't.

I wasn't there, no police report that I'm aware of available.
Ok. Then I don't know why you're making factually incorrect statements.

You: "It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it."

Witnesses did not make this claim. This is false.
 
Last edited:

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
You're looking for the "false" rating to tell the whole story. The article tells the full story and serves as the justification for their one-word ruling.
You... Don't see that as a problem??? A one word ruling for all those points?
Don't all fact-checkers do that?

No, I don't have a problem with it. It's the tl;dr version of the article, but there's obviously more to it if you dig through the details.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,482
Reaction score
1,496
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
Cn you please show where Polifact is wrong?

I would expect you to use evidence like they do and we can submit it to them to ask if they willing to defend there decisions...

I am waiting...
Come on Ted. You seriously can’t be this gullible. Read through their claims and research them.
Show us the evidence of an actual verdict they got wrong... Back that us with evidence.... Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean it is wrong...
Is your google broken or something?

The 11 Worst Fact-Checks By Facebook’s New Fact-Checkers

Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers: Politifact and Snopes Flagged ONLY 4% of Fake News Stories from Mueller Witch Hunt -- MISSED 96% OF THE FAKE NEWS

Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives

PolitiFact Is Guilty of Fact Abuse

Seven ‘Facts’ Politifact Got Flagrantly Wrong While Providing Cover For Clinton Foundation

Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise

politifact proven wrong - Bing
Daily Caller has a worse reputation than politifact: right bias with mixed factual rating for daily caller.

The federalist has worse reputation than politifact: further right bias and borderline questionable source.

Newsmax has worse reputation than politifact: right bias with mix factual rating for newsmax.

gateway pundit is worst of the bunch with conspiracy pseudo science, its off the charts
 

CowboyTed

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,116
Points
290
Location
Ireland
Cn you please show where Polifact is wrong?

I would expect you to use evidence like they do and we can submit it to them to ask if they willing to defend there decisions...

I am waiting...

They're not "wrong," they're lying. Politifraud did what they always do, lied.

As for proof, watch the video you toothless fucking retard.
The video is a marinading mess... What verdict and evidence to prove against it...

Seriously you want people to watch a 13min diatribe, where is the actual evidence...
 
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198
Ok. Then I don't know why you're making factually incorrect statements.

You: "It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it."

Witnesses did not make this claim. This is false.
No... I can't prove it doesn't not mean the claim isn't there. OBVIOUSLY. If it wasn't claimed then we wouldn't be talking about it.
 
OP
Shelzin

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
1,602
Points
198

CowboyTed

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,116
Points
290
Location
Ireland
Ok. Then I don't know why you're making factually incorrect statements.

You: "It's claimed by witnesses that he said he had a gun, and was going to get it."

Witnesses did not make this claim. This is false.
No... I can't prove it doesn't not mean the claim isn't there. OBVIOUSLY. If it wasn't claimed then we wouldn't be talking about it.
So with no evidence you want to discredit Poltifact...

Sorry, but Poltifact actually investigated this and they are very transparent how they came to the conclusion...

Not liking the verdict is not a reason to just insult Poltifact. You need actual evidence and by the way on the rare times they challenged they have corrected where they saw reasonable. There is no doubling down, it is reason and evidence based...

Note: if the had a full audio of the event this would be Pant on Fire...
 

CowboyTed

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,116
Points
290
Location
Ireland
You're looking for the "false" rating to tell the whole story. The article tells the full story and serves as the justification for their one-word ruling.
You... Don't see that as a problem??? A one word ruling for all those points?
Don't all fact-checkers do that?
No. Although admittedly it could be something politifact does all the time. I don't pay much attention to them.
A lot of Fact checkers have a
Verdict : Meter, Pinocchios, True/False/maybe

Short explanation

Longer explanation with references...

This is why they get things right... They have references for everything they say... They start with the long version a distill down to a verdict.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
84,557
Reaction score
14,593
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
No, they didn't.

You claim that the following statement of theirs is a lie: "There was no gun involved. State investigators said there was none found at the scene".

Looks true to me. Even if it lacks relevance (in your opinion), that has nothing to do with it being true. So once again, exactly what statement did they make that was false?
The lie is in calling the facebook post "false." The basis of calling it false was the gun. Except the facebook post NEVER CLAIMED A GUN WAS THERE, so Politifraud built a straw man argument, defeated their own construct, and called the facebook post false based on their defeat of their own strawman.

Politifraud lied - the facebook post was entirely factual, but not in keeping with the POLITICAL goals of fascistbook or Politifraud.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top