5 ms·

This particular site is definitely strongly right-leaning. However, the vast majority of its claims are based in objective scientific studies and reporting. It'

This particular site is definitely strongly right-leaning. However, the vast majority of its claims are based in objective scientific studies and reporting. It's a pretty rare bird, don't see a lot of sites with its style.

joshuamorton 7y ago
So, if you explore the site a bit more, you'll come across a page on racial issues, which among other things includes this fun tidbit: > Apes, on the contrary, can grasp in this way with the hind-foot as well as the fore-foot, and were therefore regarded as four-handed. Many tribes, however, among the lower races of men, especially many negro tribes, use the foot in the same way as the hand. Can you explain to me why they'd include such a "fact"? To be fair, the actual "fact" they claim is that an evolutionary biologist in the 1800s said that, but 1800s evolutionary biologists said many things, so why include that statement specifically as a fact? Especially as I'm sure if I asked them, they'd claim not to endorse such views. But if they don't endorse those views, why bring that fact to the forefront, instead of some other?
- Excel_Wizard 7y ago
  They are strongly right-leaning. Their selection of information that they present is heavily biased in its selection, but I believe that the statistics they present are true. I don't think they would call anyone the "lower races" though. That was a quote from an 1800's biologist. They (the site editors) probably do believe that people of African descent are a bit stupider than other folks. Not sure whether they (the site editors) would believe it is genetic or cultural. It's not like anyone is surprised that an 1800's colonialist would use such language. The statistics they present, on the whole, are still a useful bit of information to read. A lot of the information they have on gun control was both surprising and trustworthy. Just make sure they're not your only source- it would not be balanced. They are a bit malicious in their selection bias. They might be a gateway drug to the alt-right, but they also present a lot of information that other media specifically avoids because it is inflammatory and bad for business.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
JAlexoid 7y ago
Ahh... The 80/20 principle. I throw 80% of facts and provide 20% of opinion to tie these facts together in a way that I want. I mean.... The article literally acknowledges that an average Spanish person has a higher standard of life, than the bottom 20% of household income families in US. But somehow the same people manage to be wealthier?!?!?! Also - the name Just Facts is factually untrue, because the author spends more than half of the article on opinions. - Oh, I always forget that those statistics are computed differently in US. In US this is family income, while most other places it's personal income.

joshuamorton 7y ago

So, if you explore the site a bit more, you'll come across a page on racial issues, which among other things includes this fun tidbit: > Apes, on the contrary, can grasp in this way with the hind-foot as well as the fore-foot, and were therefore regarded as four-handed. Many tribes, however, among the lower races of men, especially many negro tribes, use the foot in the same way as the hand. Can you explain to me why they'd include such a "fact"? To be fair, the actual "fact" they claim is that an evolutionary biologist in the 1800s said that, but 1800s evolutionary biologists said many things, so why include that statement specifically as a fact? Especially as I'm sure if I asked them, they'd claim not to endorse such views. But if they don't endorse those views, why bring that fact to the forefront, instead of some other?

Excel_Wizard 7y ago
They are strongly right-leaning. Their selection of information that they present is heavily biased in its selection, but I believe that the statistics they present are true. I don't think they would call anyone the "lower races" though. That was a quote from an 1800's biologist. They (the site editors) probably do believe that people of African descent are a bit stupider than other folks. Not sure whether they (the site editors) would believe it is genetic or cultural. It's not like anyone is surprised that an 1800's colonialist would use such language. The statistics they present, on the whole, are still a useful bit of information to read. A lot of the information they have on gun control was both surprising and trustworthy. Just make sure they're not your only source- it would not be balanced. They are a bit malicious in their selection bias. They might be a gateway drug to the alt-right, but they also present a lot of information that other media specifically avoids because it is inflammatory and bad for business.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

JAlexoid 7y ago

Ahh... The 80/20 principle. I throw 80% of facts and provide 20% of opinion to tie these facts together in a way that I want. I mean.... The article literally acknowledges that an average Spanish person has a higher standard of life, than the bottom 20% of household income families in US. But somehow the same people manage to be wealthier?!?!?! Also - the name Just Facts is factually untrue, because the author spends more than half of the article on opinions. - Oh, I always forget that those statistics are computed differently in US. In US this is family income, while most other places it's personal income.