5 ms·

"Fact-checking" has very little to do with facts. It's just a clever rhetorical ploy to promote some viewpoints and disqualify others. Specifically, it's a spec

by User23 6y ago

"Fact-checking" has very little to do with facts. It's just a clever rhetorical ploy to promote some viewpoints and disqualify others. Specifically, it's a species of bullshit[1]. If the actual facts support the bullshitter all the better, but if they don't you can rest assured the "fact check" will be "contextualized" to whatever extent is needed to serve the bullshitters' rhetorical ends. [1] Bullshit defined here as speech intended to persuade without regard for veracity. The liar knows the truth and conceals it, but the bullshitter doesn't care if his statements are true so long as his bullshit is persuasive. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/385.On_Bullshit https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/385.On_Bullshit

rabuse 6y ago
This is how I feel about people claiming every dissenting view as "fact checked" or "debunked" in recent times; it just throws out any possibility of debate.
smt88 6y ago
So you believe nothing is a fact? You're obviously not the target audience of fact-checkers. Most people agree on some basic principles of reality that can't be skewed. For example, when a politician says something in public that millions of people hear and is recorded on video, and then he says he didn't say it, that is a lie. A fact-checker would provide the evidence and context. Or if a politician says that nothing could be done to reduce Covid deaths in the US, that is less straightforward but also an easy lie to disprove because there are people who died due to lack of available tests for their coworkers, or people who died because of a huge nightclub being allowed to stay open.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I hope you agree that context matters. Anyone can have a sound bite cut out of a larger statement and have that spun to be something that isn't representative, or that he didn't intend, or even the complete opposite. And then for many people, repitition becomes fact. Whatever they've heard most often, from the most sources, becomes their belief.
  - loopz 6y ago
    For something to be fact-checked, it must take context in consideration. Fact-check can be true, a middle ground (both true and false) or false. So there's not this black and white as some people pretend it is. A few just want to pretend they should get away with lying, and getting people to go along with their villainry. Beware such sociopaths, they will do the same to you and loved ones at next turn. Never yield any power to such people. No cause is worth destruction. If your statements don't hold water, you should be held accountable for it, and there should be consequences according to your power. When those consequences is more power, you sooner or later arrive at Mussolini (look him up). Though, for many people, facts, science, teachers, doctors, none of that matter. So this means the political system must get out of its stalemates and address the real issues that lie beneath the bullshitters. People don't think alike, so you can't reach everyone, even if you think you have all the facts. Besides, facts can always be disputed, though not unreasonably so. My conclusion is, no fact-checking will ever be sexy and viral. People will die of boredom instead :) Good try though!
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > you believe nothing is a fact No, but I do believe that “fact-checkers” get it wrong often enough to be skeptical about what they say is.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Any citations for that one? Everytime I see a fact checker called biased for one way or the other, not only is it usually salty people of the opposing views usually saying it, it always seems like tittle-tattle rather than actual systemic bias.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      One that recently really bothered me was a black box on YouTube videos that mentioned anything about the US election. The black box said that "the AP has called the election" -- the Associated Press is not responsible for determining who governs the US. Also, for what it's worth, it was a math video I was watching.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        > The black box said that "the AP has called the election" -- the Associated Press is not responsible for determining who governs the US. You don't seem to understand that this is how US elections are always called? The press calls the state when they estimate it's impossible for it to go any other way, and then the electors vote a while later.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        It's the presentation of a single non-governmental, potentially biased organization, the AP, as the authoritative figure, to which I object. The black box message didn't mention electors or counts at all, only that "the AP has called" it.
        alphabettsy 6y ago
nitwit005 6y ago
Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me. [1] I mean this as the word is normally used.
- textgel 6y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-supremacists/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem... > Mixture: During the debate, Trump was repeatedly asked and invited to explicitly and clearly condemn white supremacists, and he did not do that. He did condemn it; it literally follows up with "Sure, I'm willing to do that." And for added bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc 38 Times President Trump Has Condemned Racism and White Supremacy ------------------------- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-120million-deaths-covid19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-120million-deaths-co... > Mostly False: Biden said "Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID" at the Pennsylvania event in apparent reference to U.S. fatalities. There is literally a video of him in the article doing it ------------------------- Took literally a couple of seconds to find evidence.
  - nitwit005 6y ago
    You're trying to fact check me. If we apply the logic of the post I replied to, that means your post is a rhetorical ploy and bullshit (see prior footnote 1). Oddly enough, I'm not sure there's any sensible way to refute me without first trying to refute that original post.
    - textgel 6y ago
      > Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me. ^ This is you stating that fact checking isn't used by malicious actors and there is no evidence to show it is. I just demonstrated with evidence that it is. You are now trying to twist your way out of this by equating "fact checkers" (IE major organisation presenting opinions as facts that are not up for debate) and the act of correcting misinformation as one and the same thing. Twisting of words is one of many dishonest tactics used by progressives in debate and it's the same one you are attempting to use right now. For the record, I'm good at pointing out dishonest tactics and people who use them in debate, I wouldn't continue. Also while this is going down this path, I'm going to bring up the narcissists prayer so we can refer back to it later if you continue with this approach.
jberryman 6y ago
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
- treesprite82 6y ago
  A number of fact checks just amount to "don't say it like that, say it in a way that supports our narrative instead" when there's no factual error. E.G: https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png In cases of no evidence, they'll usually rule favorably if it's a narrative they like. Such as here with "Unproven, but alludes to a deeper truth": https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png Compared that to consistently rating Trump's claims as "Pants on fire" for lack of evidence, or "Mostly False" even when they found strong supporting evidence: https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png There's many topics which, even if I agree with the writer, should be in the realm of an article or opinion piece rather than a fact check (E.G: "AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts record; BLM falsely accused of coordinating violent protests"). Fact checks should ideally stick to debunking falsifiable claims, rather than providing a counterargument for/against a large political issue.
Technically 6y ago
We are observing the commoditization of "facts".
jb775 6y ago
I recently noticed truthorfiction.com being prominently displayed on Twitter/Google searches related to the election, so I looked into who's actually managing content there. A few quick Twitter profile searches on the "Our Team" people revealed years of scathing Tweets about Donald Trump.

by User23 6y ago

rabuse 6y ago

This is how I feel about people claiming every dissenting view as "fact checked" or "debunked" in recent times; it just throws out any possibility of debate.

smt88 6y ago

So you believe nothing is a fact? You're obviously not the target audience of fact-checkers. Most people agree on some basic principles of reality that can't be skewed. For example, when a politician says something in public that millions of people hear and is recorded on video, and then he says he didn't say it, that is a lie. A fact-checker would provide the evidence and context. Or if a politician says that nothing could be done to reduce Covid deaths in the US, that is less straightforward but also an easy lie to disprove because there are people who died due to lack of available tests for their coworkers, or people who died because of a huge nightclub being allowed to stay open.

throwaway201103 6y ago
I hope you agree that context matters. Anyone can have a sound bite cut out of a larger statement and have that spun to be something that isn't representative, or that he didn't intend, or even the complete opposite. And then for many people, repitition becomes fact. Whatever they've heard most often, from the most sources, becomes their belief.
- loopz 6y ago
  For something to be fact-checked, it must take context in consideration. Fact-check can be true, a middle ground (both true and false) or false. So there's not this black and white as some people pretend it is. A few just want to pretend they should get away with lying, and getting people to go along with their villainry. Beware such sociopaths, they will do the same to you and loved ones at next turn. Never yield any power to such people. No cause is worth destruction. If your statements don't hold water, you should be held accountable for it, and there should be consequences according to your power. When those consequences is more power, you sooner or later arrive at Mussolini (look him up). Though, for many people, facts, science, teachers, doctors, none of that matter. So this means the political system must get out of its stalemates and address the real issues that lie beneath the bullshitters. People don't think alike, so you can't reach everyone, even if you think you have all the facts. Besides, facts can always be disputed, though not unreasonably so. My conclusion is, no fact-checking will ever be sexy and viral. People will die of boredom instead :) Good try though!
commandlinefan 6y ago
> you believe nothing is a fact No, but I do believe that “fact-checkers” get it wrong often enough to be skeptical about what they say is.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Any citations for that one? Everytime I see a fact checker called biased for one way or the other, not only is it usually salty people of the opposing views usually saying it, it always seems like tittle-tattle rather than actual systemic bias.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    One that recently really bothered me was a black box on YouTube videos that mentioned anything about the US election. The black box said that "the AP has called the election" -- the Associated Press is not responsible for determining who governs the US. Also, for what it's worth, it was a math video I was watching.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      > The black box said that "the AP has called the election" -- the Associated Press is not responsible for determining who governs the US. You don't seem to understand that this is how US elections are always called? The press calls the state when they estimate it's impossible for it to go any other way, and then the electors vote a while later.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        It's the presentation of a single non-governmental, potentially biased organization, the AP, as the authoritative figure, to which I object. The black box message didn't mention electors or counts at all, only that "the AP has called" it.
        alphabettsy 6y ago

nitwit005 6y ago

Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me. [1] I mean this as the word is normally used.

textgel 6y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-supremacists/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem... > Mixture: During the debate, Trump was repeatedly asked and invited to explicitly and clearly condemn white supremacists, and he did not do that. He did condemn it; it literally follows up with "Sure, I'm willing to do that." And for added bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc 38 Times President Trump Has Condemned Racism and White Supremacy ------------------------- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-120million-deaths-covid19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-120million-deaths-co... > Mostly False: Biden said "Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID" at the Pennsylvania event in apparent reference to U.S. fatalities. There is literally a video of him in the article doing it ------------------------- Took literally a couple of seconds to find evidence.
- nitwit005 6y ago
  You're trying to fact check me. If we apply the logic of the post I replied to, that means your post is a rhetorical ploy and bullshit (see prior footnote 1). Oddly enough, I'm not sure there's any sensible way to refute me without first trying to refute that original post.
  - textgel 6y ago
    > Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me. ^ This is you stating that fact checking isn't used by malicious actors and there is no evidence to show it is. I just demonstrated with evidence that it is. You are now trying to twist your way out of this by equating "fact checkers" (IE major organisation presenting opinions as facts that are not up for debate) and the act of correcting misinformation as one and the same thing. Twisting of words is one of many dishonest tactics used by progressives in debate and it's the same one you are attempting to use right now. For the record, I'm good at pointing out dishonest tactics and people who use them in debate, I wouldn't continue. Also while this is going down this path, I'm going to bring up the narcissists prayer so we can refer back to it later if you continue with this approach.

jberryman 6y ago

Do you have an example of what you're talking about?

treesprite82 6y ago
A number of fact checks just amount to "don't say it like that, say it in a way that supports our narrative instead" when there's no factual error. E.G: https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png In cases of no evidence, they'll usually rule favorably if it's a narrative they like. Such as here with "Unproven, but alludes to a deeper truth": https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png Compared that to consistently rating Trump's claims as "Pants on fire" for lack of evidence, or "Mostly False" even when they found strong supporting evidence: https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png There's many topics which, even if I agree with the writer, should be in the realm of an article or opinion piece rather than a fact check (E.G: "AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts record; BLM falsely accused of coordinating violent protests"). Fact checks should ideally stick to debunking falsifiable claims, rather than providing a counterargument for/against a large political issue.

Technically 6y ago

We are observing the commoditization of "facts".

jb775 6y ago

I recently noticed truthorfiction.com being prominently displayed on Twitter/Google searches related to the election, so I looked into who's actually managing content there. A few quick Twitter profile searches on the "Our Team" people revealed years of scathing Tweets about Donald Trump.