4 ms·

Maybe reality doesn't match your opinions.

jessaustin 10y ago
If one suspected this whole effort will be focused far more on politics than on truthiness (I know... amazing!), you've just confirmed that suspicion. Congratulations, I guess.
- morgante 10y ago
  You're the one focused more on politics than truthfulness. What exactly do you disagree with in this code of principles? [0] Or is the problem that reporting reality accurately undermines your fantasy? [0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/ http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Haha yeah after one post I'm "focused". Meanwhile you have seven posts on this page, none of which obey the Principle of Charity. There's still time to edit! I see nothing wrong with the document you link.
throwanem 10y ago
Maybe it takes a little more to convince anyone of anything than merely to say "no, you're wrong" over and over and over again. Would that the world were so simple, perhaps. Evidence suggests that it is not.
- morgante 10y ago
  I agree that saying "you're wrong" isn't an effective rhetorical technique, but trying to argue with alt-right trolls is a waste of effort. Sites like Snopes and Politifact do the research, with primary sources, to actually validate claims. Since conservatives can't actually invalidate those claims, they've decided to simply claim that any source which disagrees with them is biased. It's gaslighting.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    The evidence is often correct. It's the assignment of weight to each claim, lack of charity when reading, and therefore output of the truth-o-meter which is biased. This isn't just rhetoric; it can be evaluated rationally. Worth scrolling through this Twitter feed [0] for individual examples. They can be validated and many are not just 'gaslighting by the right'. And others feel this way, too [1]. [0] https://twitter.com/PolitiFactBias https://twitter.com/PolitiFactBias [1] https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/809480523693387777 https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/809480523693387777
    - morgante 10y ago
      To some extent, I agree that Politifact's ratings are bad because they're inherently subjective. Thankfully Facebook's system will allow you to click through to the original article and read the evidence for yourself. The latest claim is that even Snopes is politically motivated and lying. The amount of gas lighting which the alt-right is doing is absurd.

If one suspected this whole effort will be focused far more on politics than on truthiness (I know... amazing!), you've just confirmed that suspicion. Congratulations, I guess.

morgante 10y ago
You're the one focused more on politics than truthfulness. What exactly do you disagree with in this code of principles? [0] Or is the problem that reporting reality accurately undermines your fantasy? [0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/ http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Haha yeah after one post I'm "focused". Meanwhile you have seven posts on this page, none of which obey the Principle of Charity. There's still time to edit! I see nothing wrong with the document you link.

throwanem 10y ago

Maybe it takes a little more to convince anyone of anything than merely to say "no, you're wrong" over and over and over again. Would that the world were so simple, perhaps. Evidence suggests that it is not.

morgante 10y ago
I agree that saying "you're wrong" isn't an effective rhetorical technique, but trying to argue with alt-right trolls is a waste of effort. Sites like Snopes and Politifact do the research, with primary sources, to actually validate claims. Since conservatives can't actually invalidate those claims, they've decided to simply claim that any source which disagrees with them is biased. It's gaslighting.
- lhnz 10y ago
  The evidence is often correct. It's the assignment of weight to each claim, lack of charity when reading, and therefore output of the truth-o-meter which is biased. This isn't just rhetoric; it can be evaluated rationally. Worth scrolling through this Twitter feed [0] for individual examples. They can be validated and many are not just 'gaslighting by the right'. And others feel this way, too [1]. [0] https://twitter.com/PolitiFactBias https://twitter.com/PolitiFactBias [1] https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/809480523693387777 https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/809480523693387777
  - morgante 10y ago
    To some extent, I agree that Politifact's ratings are bad because they're inherently subjective. Thankfully Facebook's system will allow you to click through to the original article and read the evidence for yourself. The latest claim is that even Snopes is politically motivated and lying. The amount of gas lighting which the alt-right is doing is absurd.