Media "Fact Checkers" hard at work protecting Kamala Harris

[User]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

Fact Check: Donald Trump is a racist who cheated on all three of his wives.  And Kamala sent one Tweet.  Yeah. Got it. She sent a Tweet.

It is comical how you can't handle the facts here and have to try to change the subject and ignore them. 

 

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Here are some "facts" for y'all Libbies.

1. The Democrats cheated on many levels to put Brandon in the Whitehouse. Proof: Illegally changing election rules in many states. The claim that Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian plant.

2. Kamala Harris was named Border Czar. Proof:

 

3. Kamala Haris is an id1ot. Proof:

 

🤣

 

That is some seriously brutal shite. 

If americans are exposed to her for any length of time, she's done.  She needs to somehow make this all about trump and if trump doesn't rise to her bait it'll be all over for her. 

[Matthew]

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

Facts are fine...in proper context and when all facts are exposed.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

No you haven't. 

Pretty much all people like it as a concept.  The vast majority of people if not all prefer to know what is or is not the truth. 

But when the left wing talks about 'fact checking' - what they really mean is "fact filtering".  They will allow through any 'facts' that support their position, and will look to deny or downplay 'facts' that don't.  IT's not about what is or isn't true. 

And THAT is what some people don't like the concept of.  Liberals love it.  

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

Further to what CdnFox already told you, if fact-checking was legitimate it would be roundly appreciated, but fact-checking is just another form of lying.

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

I've noticed that conservatives don't like "fact checking". [<-- I just fake-quoted you, CBS style]

100% false, Matthew. In fact, there are conservative fact-checking sites. [<-- I just debunked my own fake quote, CBS style]

 

Do you see what I did there? I changed your quote and then fact-checked it. (It's like a straw-man fact-check)

"Oh but that's awful WCM, you can't do that to me! That's a lie!"

Well, the point here is that I just did to you what CBS did to Trump. 

You won't like the fact that it happened to you, and you'd think of me as a liar after that, but shouldn't you think of CBS as liars now? 

We all know Kamala pimped that bail fund to people, and it would be hypocritical for her to ask peons to do it if she didn't do it herself. 

CBS should be above this, but they're not. My standards are far higher than theirs. That's weird. 

Edited July 28, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

CBS should be above this, but they're not. My standards are far higher than theirs. That's weird. 

That's not weird at all.  You need a pretty advanced micrometer to even detect the height of theirs in the first place. Being higher than them isn't much of an accomplishment  

[User]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

Elaborate. 

[Matthew]

1 minute ago, User said:

Elaborate

Well as a method of journalism, attempts at fact-checking are certainty not immune to bias and inaccuracy. But the idea of picking specific factual statements made and doing a deep dive on the veracity of those statements is extremely valuable in a media landscape that otherwise operates like an echo chamber of contrived narratives.

As one would expect, politicans and political hobbyists whose entire schtick revolves around made-up non-factual talking points tend to be the ones who ridicule fact checking generally as a practice.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Matthew said:

Well as a method of journalism, attempts at fact-checking are certainty not immune to bias and inaccuracy. But the idea of picking specific factual statements made and doing a deep dive on the veracity of those statements is extremely valuable in a media landscape that otherwise operates like an echo chamber of contrived narratives.

 

It would be. But it doesn't happen very often.  Fact checkers aren't really about the facts these days. 

In "fact", there's congressional hearings about this right now, going over how the use of specific 'fact checking' companies in advertising has been used to radically skew what the public sees. 

Fact checking just becomes another political tool.  Check your own facts. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well as a method of journalism, attempts at fact-checking are certainty not immune to bias and inaccuracy.

So what's the point of a fact check if it's biased or inaccurate?

Do you think maybe "a certain kind of people" like their fact checks to be accurate and honest?  

Maybe instead of asking us to lower our standards, you should raise yours. 

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So what's the point of a fact check if it's biased or inaccurate?

To protect you from  "Wrongfacts" and make sure you're only getting "newfacts".  it's like newspeak from orwells 1984 but different  

Newspeak - Wikipedia

Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will,[1][2] which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.[3][4]

[WestCanMan]

We broke Matthew 😉

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

We broke Matthew 😉

You remember that scene from star trek where spock disables that android by asking it to calculate Pi to the last decimal place?

I think it's a little like that.