WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Is Snopes complete garbage?
Posted 11/23/16

octorockandroll wrote:

Snopes is like Wikipedia. Most of it is legit, and some isn't..


Well thank crap, at least you admit that much


included in the "isnt" category, is anything of a remotely sensitive nature.
454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 11/28/16

octorockandroll wrote:

Snopes is like Wikipedia. Most of it is legit, and some isn't. But like Wikipedia it has a strong tendency towards citing its sources and linking you to them directly. It's up to you to use that and decide for yourself.


I do tend to take some of the things stated there with a grain of salt.
42294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
yikes
Offline
Posted 11/29/16
Still less garbage than Wikileaks or the somehow often cited garbage that seems to be Brietbart and Infowars.
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 11/29/16 , edited 11/29/16
You know, sometimes, the truth does favor one "side" over another, whether that be an issue that's political or scientific or social... The universe, and what simply is, is not biased. That being said, any and every source is written by a human who has their own personal belief system, so just decide for yourself what level of "purity" you want and how much you want to believe that people are letting their pre-existing beliefs guide their fact-finding. I find that it doesn't hurt me at all to take well-reputed sources at their word, even if it turns out to be wrong later.
25604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/29/16

Rujikin wrote:

FlyinDumpling wrote:

Next Episode:

Should you cite Wikipedia on your next research paper?


http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/

Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 99.5%

Indeed, it seems like a good place to start.


Obviously, we wouldn't cite Wikipedia, but we would cite all their good sources.
Posted 11/29/16

animegirl2222 wrote:

Still less garbage than Wikileaks or the somehow often cited garbage that seems to be Brietbart and Infowars.


I love how when misdeeds like this are uncovered and then people start just saying its fake, even though wikileaks released accurate information, and nobody ever disputed the authenticity of the emails no matter how disgusting...

....so yeah... the irony of "bring informed"....
14264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/29/16
Well, as it has been famously said, "There's lies, damn lies, and Snopes.com."
Posted 11/29/16
I find most, if not all, online "fact checking sites" to have some political bias. Even the conspiracy theory sites lean left or right, depending on which site you go to.

As octorockandroll has said, "Most of it is legit, and some isn't."
There's a lot on the site that does debunk a fair number of rumours and speculated stories. At the same time, when it comes to politically-driven logic, it does lean a bit harder on the Democratic side (sorry, I can't equate "Democrats" to liberals - I've seen too much of the world to consider either major party in the US as "liberal"). That being said, I wouldn't say that there's absolutely nothing "useful" on their site in a political sense, just that everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted 11/29/16
I dont understand the logic of stating that evidence of child sex trafficking should be taken with a grain of salt.

they should have the book thrown at them with the force of a supernova and never again see the light of day without bars in front of their vision.
Banned
20726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 11/29/16

octorockandroll wrote:

Snopes is like Wikipedia. Most of it is legit, and some isn't. But like Wikipedia it has a strong tendency towards citing its sources and linking you to them directly. It's up to you to use that and decide for yourself.


Snopes is OK for internet rumors rs but once you get into politics it becomes a shitfest and links sources which disprove themselves.
10932 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 11/29/16

Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Snopes is like Wikipedia. Most of it is legit, and some isn't. But like Wikipedia it has a strong tendency towards citing its sources and linking you to them directly. It's up to you to use that and decide for yourself.


Snopes is OK for internet rumors rs but once you get into politics it becomes a shitfest and links sources which disprove themselves.


Like I said, it is up to you to look at the sources cited and inform yourself directly.
Posted 11/29/16
Snopes showed its true colors when they got behind the physically false 911 Convenience Theory
42294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
yikes
Offline
Posted 11/29/16 , edited 12/2/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:

Still less garbage than Wikileaks or the somehow often cited garbage that seems to be Brietbart and Infowars.


I love how when misdeeds like this are uncovered and then people start just saying its fake, even though wikileaks released accurate information, and nobody ever disputed the authenticity of the emails no matter how disgusting...

....so yeah... the irony of "bring informed"....


I could've sworn I had another argument on MAL with one of you easily deceived, gulliable whackjobs none too long ago.

the "child sacrifice" banter was utter conspiracist bullshit! The only "evidence" you have therein, and I read that trash with my own eyes, is alleged "codewords", that could easily mean a number of things. Moreover, the emails there could very easily be falsified as a measure to further piss off the Trump supporters and the right biased media. And it did. They erupted! They fell right into the conveniently placed trap.

Even if they technically release "documents", the documents are easily prone to misinterpretation, if they contain any trace of actual incrimination and not misconstrued, easily falsified crap. Either way, they've no way to verify the validity of what they publish even if they claim to screen them.

They're just as bad as any fucking MSM outlet. Their agenda is to stir the pot, stir tensions, retain dat viewership. They don't care about accuracy I would bet. they'd post dubious documents if it'd create enough tension.

Get off your fucking high horse. They're not some unconditional truth.
Posted 11/29/16 , edited 11/29/16

animegirl2222 wrote:

I could've sworn I had another argument on MAL with one of you easily deceived, gulliable whackjobs none too long ago.

the "child sacrifice" banter was utter conspiracist bullshit! The only "evidence" you have therein, and I read that trash with my own eyes, is alleged "codewords", that could easily mean a number of things. Moreover, the emails there could very easily be falsified as a measure to further piss off the Trump supporters and the right biased media. And it did. They erupted! They fell right into the conveniently placed trap.

Even if they technically release "documents", the documents are easily prone to misinterpretation, if they contain any trace of actual incrimination and not misconstrued, easily falsified crap. Either way, they've no way to verify the validity of what they publish even if they claim to screen them.

They're just as bad as any fucking MSM outlet. Their agenda is to stir the pot, stir tensions, retain dat viewership. They don't care about accuracy I would bet. they'd post dubious documents if it'd create enough tension.

Get off your fucking high horse. They're not some unconditional truth.


High Horse? Hey, I'm not the one lending support to pedophiles by helping the matter be covered up and berating people that want the pedos jailed.

Sure sure sure its just some coincidence that they have the whole entire FBI lexicon of pedo code embedded in their businesses, tweets, emails.

What galls me about people like you is that if it were a republican, you'd be all over it and calling for their heads, but since its queen hillary, my oh jeez none of this can be proven, this means nothing..

So yeah, sure you read that trash with your own eyes, maybe like a 3 second glimpse of it before clicking the X and saying "this cant possibly be true!!!!"

If you were impartial you'd be calling for their heads, but you're a good little progressive and cant go against any of the party no matter how badly they're caught doing utterly despicable things.



Go look at Dennis Hastert and the Franklin Case in the 80s an then realize that he's good friends with Alefantis, look at the Brock & Podesta connections.

Hastert ADMITTED TO IT back then. Back before it became "an internal cia matter."

But dont let the proven history of all this sway your programming or anything, you might get accused of independent thought or some other heinous crime.
runec 
34843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/29/16

animegirl2222 wrote:
the "child sacrifice" banter was utter conspiracist bullshit! The only "evidence" you have therein, and I read that trash with my own eyes, is alleged "codewords", that could easily mean a number of things. Moreover, the emails there could very easily be falsified as a measure to further piss off the Trump supporters and the right biased media. And it did. They erupted! They fell right into the conveniently placed trap.


Abort abort, do not engage! Danger Will Robinson!

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.