When outrage is all the rage, progressive politics suffer

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Holy shit. They came to this conclusion in 2017. Seems 2008-2016 that was never the case.

 

[John Shaw]

"
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.

From where are you basing these assumptions?

Again, something is either true or false. In the case of something more complex, parts can be true and parts can be false.

For instance; Susan bought new shoes on Thursday. Did Susan buy new shoes on Thursday? Either she did or she didn't. If she bought a shirt but no shoes, then it's false. If she bought shoes on Wednesday but none on Thursday, it's still false. If she bought sandals on Thursday, then it's true because sandals are indeed shoes.

The rest is all opinion, which cannot be fact checked.

For instance; Blind Guardian is a good band. There is no factual basis for this statement; some might think so, and others might not. That's because the measurement of the quality of music is too intangible, too subjective. If someone is trying to fact check whether or not Blind Guardian is a good band, then they're an idiot.

But you can definitely fact check whether Susan bought shoes on Thursday. And regardless of whether you love Susan or hate her, she either did, or did not, buy those shoes on that day.

 

[Billy000]

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?

Um and I wonder why you think they had a report in the first place if they didn’t publish anything.

 

[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?

Um and I wonder why you think they had a report in the first place if they didn’t publish anything.

sorry, but I said no such thing.

 

[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

Holy shit. They came to this conclusion in 2017. Seems 2008-2016 that was never the case.

Since you were brazenly unaware of the WAPO article...I would guess you're equally dumb about what WAPO may or may not have said from 08-16.

 

[ricechickie]

Nobody is taught how to think critically anymore.

And that may be at the core of our problems. We're conditioned to think tactically, not critically. Beat the other "side", no matter what it takes. Wait for the the person to stop talking, and then just attack.

There are people who argue that it has been so long since we engaged in critical thinking and communicated based on critical thinking that we've essentially lost the skill.

I agree with that, and that worries me as much as anything else.
.

I hope we haven’t lost it.

I was just talking to my son along these lines. Have we stopped progressing? I contend we’re in a state of cultural upheaval, and without seeing the bigger historical picture, it feels like our society is going to hell.

I think critical thinking has sort of fallen out of favor, but not lost.

 

[miketx]

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

Holy shit. They came to this conclusion in 2017. Seems 2008-2016 that was never the case.

Since you were brazenly unaware of the WAPO article...I would guess you're equally dumb about what WAPO may or may not have said from 08-16.

I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Washington Post cannot be trusted to report fairly or in an unbiased manner. From what I have seen "regressives" are suffering because of their own deluded and misguided actions all over the country, and using the other side of their mouths to deny it.

 

[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...

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 ******* 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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

 

[John Shaw]

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 ******* 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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

 

[flacaltenn]

Time well tell on all "facts".
But in the meantime remember that newspapers are held to a higher bar than any internet "news" outlet,

In case you're wondering why you got the funny -- it was not your 1st line. That was brilliant. It was "the higher bar" comment that literally had me ROFLing off my chair.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 ******* 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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

There's no context required to fact-check that simple statement. It's obviously 100% true and their meter is fucked. The REST of all that is handing the retarded their talking points and spin for the day. I wouldn't mind it if they called it "The Spin Classroom". Because that's a more accurate representation of what they do.

They're welcome to provide that service for the challenged. Just be honest that isn't simple fact checking.

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact John Shaw , -- the SPIN is dishonest. THey bend over to credit Obama but US emissions are decreasing IN SPITE OF OBAMA. Because the reductions back to 1990 levels are ACTUALLY due to fracking for natural gas in Dakotas and elsewhere. Efforts STYMIED by the Obama EPA.

This is diff between getting talking points and critical thinking. You're HELPLESS in debate with talking points.

Did your 5th grade teacher leave out the most IMPORTANT parts also?

 

[John Shaw]

Interesting...

On June 17, you quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying:

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 ******* 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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

There's no context required to fact-check that simple statement. It's obviously 100% true and their meter is fucked. The REST of all that is handing the retarded their talking points and spin for the day. I wouldn't mind it if they called it "The Spin Classroom". Because that's a more accurate representation of what they do.

They're welcome to provide that service for the challenged. Just be honest that isn't simple fact checking.

I think in this particular case they should have just rated it "true". I don't know what is half true about the statement; emissions can be down under Trump without it having been his direct influence to cause it.

But that's the great thing about all the rest; you can come to that realization yourself through reading. If it just said "half-true", then that would be retarded.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

From where are you basing these assumptions?

Again, something is either true or false. In the case of something more complex, parts can be true and parts can be false.

For instance; Susan bought new shoes on Thursday. Did Susan buy new shoes on Thursday? Either she did or she didn't. If she bought a shirt but no shoes, then it's false. If she bought shoes on Wednesday but none on Thursday, it's still false. If she bought sandals on Thursday, then it's true because sandals are indeed shoes.

The rest is all opinion, which cannot be fact checked.

For instance; Blind Guardian is a good band. There is no factual basis for this statement; some might think so, and others might not. That's because the measurement of the quality of music is too intangible, too subjective. If someone is trying to fact check whether or not Blind Guardian is a good band, then they're an idiot.

But you can definitely fact check whether Susan bought shoes on Thursday. And regardless of whether you love Susan or hate her, she either did, or did not, buy those shoes on that day.

Your left wing fact checkers would of. Course say the democrat Susan did indeed purchase those shoes on Thursday so that’s 100% true.

The republican Susan that went to the store on Thursday and picked up those shoes technically used a credit card to do so. Considering that her actual visa bill didn’t come until two weeks later when she ACTUALLY “paid” for those shoes makes her statement she “bought” those shoes on Thursday is 99% false.

Fact checker logic and the idiots that believe them.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Holy shit. They came to this conclusion in 2017. Seems 2008-2016 that was never the case.

Since you were brazenly unaware of the WAPO article...I would guess you're equally dumb about what WAPO may or may not have said from 08-16.

LMAO! What?

 

[John Shaw]

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.

From where are you basing these assumptions?

Again, something is either true or false. In the case of something more complex, parts can be true and parts can be false.

For instance; Susan bought new shoes on Thursday. Did Susan buy new shoes on Thursday? Either she did or she didn't. If she bought a shirt but no shoes, then it's false. If she bought shoes on Wednesday but none on Thursday, it's still false. If she bought sandals on Thursday, then it's true because sandals are indeed shoes.

The rest is all opinion, which cannot be fact checked.

For instance; Blind Guardian is a good band. There is no factual basis for this statement; some might think so, and others might not. That's because the measurement of the quality of music is too intangible, too subjective. If someone is trying to fact check whether or not Blind Guardian is a good band, then they're an idiot.

But you can definitely fact check whether Susan bought shoes on Thursday. And regardless of whether you love Susan or hate her, she either did, or did not, buy those shoes on that day.

Your left wing fact checkers would of. Course say the democrat Susan did indeed purchase those shoes on Thursday so that’s 100% true.

The republican Susan that went to the store on Thursday and picked up those shoes technically used a credit card to do so. Considering that her actual visa bill didn’t come until two weeks later when she ACTUALLY “paid” for those shoes makes her statement she “bought” those shoes on Thursday is 99% false.

Fact checker logic and the idiots that believe them.

Haha. Not bad.

I guess the fact checker would either need to use one standard of "purchase" or the other, regardless of the characteristics of Susan. Otherwise, they would be doing bad work.

My argument is that simply assuming that fact checkers are all lying, leftist scum is not very bright. Luckily, they usually provide an explanation as to why they come to the decision that they did. So at least you can follow the logic and decide for yourself. I never said to simply read one fact checker's appraisal and immediately decide, "Oh, guess that's it then. I won't check any other sources. This one is enough for me."

 

[flacaltenn]

You just wasted a SHIT LOAD of words and work because you have NO ******* 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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

There's no context required to fact-check that simple statement. It's obviously 100% true and their meter is fucked. The REST of all that is handing the retarded their talking points and spin for the day. I wouldn't mind it if they called it "The Spin Classroom". Because that's a more accurate representation of what they do.

They're welcome to provide that service for the challenged. Just be honest that isn't simple fact checking.

I think in this particular case they should have just rated it "true". I don't know what is half true about the statement; emissions can be down under Trump without it having been his direct influence to cause it.

But that's the great thing about all the rest; you can come to that realization yourself through reading. If it just said "half-true", then that would be retarded.

They are not INFORMING. They are propagandizing. Pure and simple. The fact that they did not explain WHY emissions were down and attempted to credit Obama is downright dangerous. Because if the non-independent thinkers run into battle with ONLY the fact-checker they are gonna get CREAMED in debate.

And I hate to see my leftist fact checking loving, buds get constantly creamed. The OP is right. What "your side" is getting known for is a lack of critical independent thinking. And a lot of noise and chaff.

 

[John Shaw]

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.

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

There's no context required to fact-check that simple statement. It's obviously 100% true and their meter is fucked. The REST of all that is handing the retarded their talking points and spin for the day. I wouldn't mind it if they called it "The Spin Classroom". Because that's a more accurate representation of what they do.

They're welcome to provide that service for the challenged. Just be honest that isn't simple fact checking.

I think in this particular case they should have just rated it "true". I don't know what is half true about the statement; emissions can be down under Trump without it having been his direct influence to cause it.

But that's the great thing about all the rest; you can come to that realization yourself through reading. If it just said "half-true", then that would be retarded.

They are not INFORMING. They are propagandizing. Pure and simple. The fact that they did not explain WHY emissions were down and attempted to credit Obama is downright dangerous. Because if the non-independent thinkers run into battle with ONLY the fact-checker they are gonna get CREAMED in debate.

And I hate to see my leftist fact checking loving, buds get constantly creamed. The OP is right. What "your side" is getting known for is a lack of critical independent thinking. And a lot of noise and chaff.

First of all, it is not "my side". Second, I never said you should rely entirely on fact checkers for your information. I said there is nothing wrong with using fact checkers as one source of information among several, if not many (depending on how much time and energy you actually have to devote to this stuff).

 

[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

Holy shit. They came to this conclusion in 2017. Seems 2008-2016 that was never the case.

Since you were brazenly unaware of the WAPO article...I would guess you're equally dumb about what WAPO may or may not have said from 08-16.

LMAO! What?

Try to keep up...

You said the following:

"They are there to make sure anything you say or do coincides with their left wing version..."

That got blown out of the water then you come back with some blanket statement alleging the same bullshit that you did the first time around....you were either woefully uninformed or are/were lying. It was proven in the former, I suspect as much in the latter.

 

[candycorn]

the truth-o-meters never change as time passes. It's enshrined forever regardless of any new context or facts. It is not "history". History never gets written 6 hours after the story breaks.

Don't want to create a diversion here. But I challenge ANY of you fact-checker psychic hotline invalids to CRITICALLY READ AND COMMENT on just the 1st "fact-check" I selected.

To think critically and understand and USE this crutch --- remember what the ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS that they are fact-checking and spinning the truth-o-meter to 1/2 true. Its a simple statement. Take it literally.

Are greenhouse gases down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

PARAGRAPHS of spin and talking points later -- the statement is STILL --- 100% true. Why were all the spin and talking points required, if the goal was to simply "fact-check" for the critical thinking disabled? Simple question -- GO !!!!

Easy. Because they are explaining how they came to their answer and putting it into context. Just like your fifth grade teacher preferred you to do when responding to essay questions in grade school.

There's no context required to fact-check that simple statement. It's obviously 100% true and their meter is fucked. The REST of all that is handing the retarded their talking points and spin for the day. I wouldn't mind it if they called it "The Spin Classroom". Because that's a more accurate representation of what they do.

They're welcome to provide that service for the challenged. Just be honest that isn't simple fact checking.

I think in this particular case they should have just rated it "true". I don't know what is half true about the statement; emissions can be down under Trump without it having been his direct influence to cause it.

But that's the great thing about all the rest; you can come to that realization yourself through reading. If it just said "half-true", then that would be retarded.

They are not INFORMING. They are propagandizing. Pure and simple. The fact that they did not explain WHY emissions were down and attempted to credit Obama is downright dangerous. Because if the non-independent thinkers run into battle with ONLY the fact-checker they are gonna get CREAMED in debate.

And I hate to see my leftist fact checking loving, buds get constantly creamed. The OP is right. What "your side" is getting known for is a lack of critical independent thinking. And a lot of noise and chaff.

First of all, it is not "my side". Second, I never said you should rely entirely on fact checkers for your information. I said there is nothing wrong with using fact checkers as one source of information among several, if not many (depending on how much time and energy you actually have to devote to this stuff).

You're doing nuance. Most conservatives have no time for nuanced arguments.