7 ms·

Please stop peddling this post-truth bullshit. No one is "deciding which politics is wrong", they're talking about people spreading things that are verifiably f

Please stop peddling this post-truth bullshit. No one is "deciding which politics is wrong", they're talking about people spreading things that are verifiably false.

linuxftw 5y ago
I disagree with your assessment. "Verifiably false" typically means "Corporate media says it's false."
- potta_coffee 5y ago
  Media on all sides cannot be trusted. You're being downvoted by people that trust media.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    Everyone who tells you something had a reason to do so. If it wasn't "you paid them", then its a good bet someone else did. Even when you paid them to tell you the truth, you have to assess what they mean by "truth" and how honest their effort to deliver it was. If a doctor says "take this pill," do you huck it down or look it up and see if its something you actually wanted to eat? People trust "authority" too much.
pessimizer 5y ago
Saying that "fact-checking" websites are often crap isn't the same as saying there's no such thing as true and false. And have you read the paper? If you haven't, what are you spreading?
Natsu 5y ago
Of course there's truth and falsehood, but the fact checking is hardly 100%. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho Or you can read, e.g. Snopes' explanation that being convicted of making bombs to blow up a government building doesn't make one a "convicted terrorist" because there's no such crime as "terrorism."
- anotha1 5y ago
  If you indirectly contribute to terrorizing people based on race because you provide aid and comfort to a racist, are you a terrorist?
  - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    I think in that case the person is a racist. I find the label and term terrorism extremely troubling as it always can be spun as "what is a terrorist in one group might be the freedom fighter to the other" the label terrorism is usually only successful in the most homogenos and brainwashed cultures, where all complexity and nuance is stripped away. it's great for propaganda or when you need to criminalize a whole society of people.
  - dang 5y ago
    Could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- allturtles 5y ago
  I don't know what the relevance of the Maher clip is. I stopped watching after a couple minutes, but all I saw was about how Democrats have false beliefs about COVID. I don't see what this has to do with fact checking. If you're referring to this Snopes (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/), the "mixed" ruling seems perfectly reasonable. Saying someone is a "convicted terrorist" is a fuzzy claim, because there is no such charge one can be convicted of. It's not like "convicted murderer".
  - Jiro 5y ago
    Claiming that it's mixed because there's no such charge is avoiding the question, which is "if a normal person reads this, would he get an accurate impression of what happened?" If someone is convicted of a crime which an ordinary person would look at and say 'that's terrorism', then it's true or mostly true. The fact that there isn't literally a definition of "convicted of terrorism" should at most change "true" into "mostly true". That's how fact checking sites usually introduce bias--they don't actually lie about literal facts, they just have shifting standards about when things need to be absolutely literally true, when they can give false impressions, and what counts as "mostly" when something is mostly true or false or mixed.
oogabooga123 5y ago
Asking “who fact checks the fact checkers” is not post-truth bullshit.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  That is pretty reasonable thing. In science we do peer review. So why not in fact checking? Not that peer review process isn't corrupted in many ways, but still it is there. Not that I think similar process was possible in fact checking...
dang 5y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." "Eschew flamebait." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please stop peddling this post-truth bullshit. No one is "deciding which politics is wrong", they're talking about people spreading things that are verifiably false.

linuxftw 5y ago

I disagree with your assessment. "Verifiably false" typically means "Corporate media says it's false."

potta_coffee 5y ago
Media on all sides cannot be trusted. You're being downvoted by people that trust media.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  Everyone who tells you something had a reason to do so. If it wasn't "you paid them", then its a good bet someone else did. Even when you paid them to tell you the truth, you have to assess what they mean by "truth" and how honest their effort to deliver it was. If a doctor says "take this pill," do you huck it down or look it up and see if its something you actually wanted to eat? People trust "authority" too much.

pessimizer 5y ago

Saying that "fact-checking" websites are often crap isn't the same as saying there's no such thing as true and false. And have you read the paper? If you haven't, what are you spreading?

Natsu 5y ago

Of course there's truth and falsehood, but the fact checking is hardly 100%. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho Or you can read, e.g. Snopes' explanation that being convicted of making bombs to blow up a government building doesn't make one a "convicted terrorist" because there's no such crime as "terrorism."

anotha1 5y ago
If you indirectly contribute to terrorizing people based on race because you provide aid and comfort to a racist, are you a terrorist?
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  I think in that case the person is a racist. I find the label and term terrorism extremely troubling as it always can be spun as "what is a terrorist in one group might be the freedom fighter to the other" the label terrorism is usually only successful in the most homogenos and brainwashed cultures, where all complexity and nuance is stripped away. it's great for propaganda or when you need to criminalize a whole society of people.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please not post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
allturtles 5y ago
I don't know what the relevance of the Maher clip is. I stopped watching after a couple minutes, but all I saw was about how Democrats have false beliefs about COVID. I don't see what this has to do with fact checking. If you're referring to this Snopes (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/), the "mixed" ruling seems perfectly reasonable. Saying someone is a "convicted terrorist" is a fuzzy claim, because there is no such charge one can be convicted of. It's not like "convicted murderer".
- Jiro 5y ago
  Claiming that it's mixed because there's no such charge is avoiding the question, which is "if a normal person reads this, would he get an accurate impression of what happened?" If someone is convicted of a crime which an ordinary person would look at and say 'that's terrorism', then it's true or mostly true. The fact that there isn't literally a definition of "convicted of terrorism" should at most change "true" into "mostly true". That's how fact checking sites usually introduce bias--they don't actually lie about literal facts, they just have shifting standards about when things need to be absolutely literally true, when they can give false impressions, and what counts as "mostly" when something is mostly true or false or mixed.

oogabooga123 5y ago

Asking “who fact checks the fact checkers” is not post-truth bullshit.

Ekaros 5y ago
That is pretty reasonable thing. In science we do peer review. So why not in fact checking? Not that peer review process isn't corrupted in many ways, but still it is there. Not that I think similar process was possible in fact checking...

dang 5y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." "Eschew flamebait." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html