4 ms·

I'm mainly asking the question because the article implies[1] that they're mainly archiving Trump stuff, not in general archiving misinformation. [1] yes, I kn

by taborj 7y ago

I'm mainly asking the question because the article implies[1] that they're mainly archiving Trump stuff, not in general archiving misinformation. [1] yes, I know it doesn't say it outright, but I don't think it's a stretch to get the gist.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
So you're criticising the article for making an argument that you realise is happening entirely in your head?
- taborj 7y ago
  Articles can be written in such a way as to imply meaning that's not specifically stated, and this is one example.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  All fact checking is opposed by the far-right worldwide (and is in fact a threat). Justification for opposing it is sought after the opinion has been formed. And since denouncing facts themselves doesn't work in all societies yet, opposition requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and fallacious reasoning like "all sides lie" or, with no justification, "fact checkers strategically target lies that serve my political preferences"
  - Cuuugi 7y ago
    cough https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/ https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/
  - weberc2 7y ago
    Be wary of the "the far right does it therefore everyone else who does it is far right" fallacy. In particular, when a fact checker says that they need to do something about <conservative political movements>, _even though I personally dislike those political movements_, I know that they're probably biased.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      What one fact checker says (or is rumored to have said) does not invalidate fact checking by everyone everywhere. In fact it does not even alter whether any given statement is true or false. But incredibly there are those who very comfortably dismiss things they acknowledge as true solely because they dislike the politics of the source. That overlooking falsehoods is acceptable in the scope of a larger political cause. That those who point them out too zealously are political enemies.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        > What one fact checker says (or is rumored to have said) does not invalidate fact checking by everyone everywhere It doesn't, but we're talking about that very fact checker, not fact checkers generally. And if you'd like to talk about fact checkers generally, then understand that very few people are opposed to fact checking generally, they're opposed to certain fact checkers that they believe are biased. > In fact it does not even alter whether any given statement is true or false. Yes, bias does affect whether certain statements are true or false. It can also be marshalled against one group to make them appear to be disproportionately full of shit. And they might actually _be_ full of shit, but if you are biased against them anyway no one knows whether you're full of shit or they're full of shit or both.
- afiori 7y ago
  From the article: """ Separately, as part of the effort to document the 45th president’s often-contradictory statements, the organisation is cataloguing Mr Trump’s tweets. """ I would say not entirely in his own head.

by taborj 7y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

So you're criticising the article for making an argument that you realise is happening entirely in your head?

taborj 7y ago
Articles can be written in such a way as to imply meaning that's not specifically stated, and this is one example.
TomMckenny 7y ago
All fact checking is opposed by the far-right worldwide (and is in fact a threat). Justification for opposing it is sought after the opinion has been formed. And since denouncing facts themselves doesn't work in all societies yet, opposition requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and fallacious reasoning like "all sides lie" or, with no justification, "fact checkers strategically target lies that serve my political preferences"
- Cuuugi 7y ago
  cough https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/ https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/
- weberc2 7y ago
  Be wary of the "the far right does it therefore everyone else who does it is far right" fallacy. In particular, when a fact checker says that they need to do something about <conservative political movements>, _even though I personally dislike those political movements_, I know that they're probably biased.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    What one fact checker says (or is rumored to have said) does not invalidate fact checking by everyone everywhere. In fact it does not even alter whether any given statement is true or false. But incredibly there are those who very comfortably dismiss things they acknowledge as true solely because they dislike the politics of the source. That overlooking falsehoods is acceptable in the scope of a larger political cause. That those who point them out too zealously are political enemies.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      > What one fact checker says (or is rumored to have said) does not invalidate fact checking by everyone everywhere It doesn't, but we're talking about that very fact checker, not fact checkers generally. And if you'd like to talk about fact checkers generally, then understand that very few people are opposed to fact checking generally, they're opposed to certain fact checkers that they believe are biased. > In fact it does not even alter whether any given statement is true or false. Yes, bias does affect whether certain statements are true or false. It can also be marshalled against one group to make them appear to be disproportionately full of shit. And they might actually _be_ full of shit, but if you are biased against them anyway no one knows whether you're full of shit or they're full of shit or both.
afiori 7y ago
From the article: """ Separately, as part of the effort to document the 45th president’s often-contradictory statements, the organisation is cataloguing Mr Trump’s tweets. """ I would say not entirely in his own head.