6 ms·

You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative.

by nsizx 5y ago

velcii 5y ago
It might be time to rename IT as MIT, stands for Mis-information technology, which is what it is, as of now..
qkqk 5y ago
Remind me of their narrative again? They say that > "Trump did not explicitly tell people to 'storm' or 'breach' or 'break into' the [US] Capitol." and included the reasoning that > the president called on supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” march or walk to the Capitol ...but wait, their far-left narrative! Why didn't they omit those references and reasoning?! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor...
- busymom0 5y ago
  Almost all these “fact checkers” exposed themselves on the lab leak theory which they had to redact after 1.5 years. Relying on any of them as a source of “truth” is asking for trouble. They are more of a narrative check.
  - farp 5y ago
    Parent comment is just a rehashing of a Fox News article. Seeing this more often on HN. https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checkers-practice-caution-lab-leak-about-face.amp https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checker...
    - busymom0 5y ago
      Good lord. I barely made a short 3 sentence long observational comment. What does it have to do with fox? You are basically doing an hominem attack. And for what it's worth, no, I haven't followed corporate media (including cnn, msnbc, fox, nytimes, washington post etc). I pay for independent journalists on substack and locals instead. Also the link which you provided is referring to RealClearPolitics being the real source, not fox. fox is doing an opinion piece on what RealClearPolitics reported. Exact same stuff which other left leaning sources do.
      - farp 5y ago
        > You are basically doing an hominem attack. Were you trying to spell "ad hominem?" > fox is doing an opinion piece on what RealClearPolitics reported Right, which is the argument I said you regurgitated. It's such a cliché even Fox News already moved on to new talking points.
  - qkqk 5y ago
    Snopes didn't, they reference a medical journal article from 1.5 years ago as evidence. Which presumably you agree with...oops! [1] Back on topic: why didn't they omit those references and reasoning regarding the Capitol?! https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/02/covid-19-why-the-lab-leak-theory-should-be-formally-investigated/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/02/covid-19-why-the-lab-...
    - spiderice 5y ago
      > why didn't they omit those references and reasoning regarding the Capitol?! Your argument seems to be: Because Snopes didn't omit references in this one case, they don't omit references ever. I've got no dog in this fight, but please, the logical fallacies are hurting my brain.
      - mavhc 5y ago
        The lack of evidence is your evidence?
        spiderice 5y ago
        What do you mean "your evidence"? I'm making no claims as to whether or not Snopes omits references. I'm merely pointing out that "My Grandma smokes and she's 100 years old" is not evidence that smoking doesn't kill.
        qkqk 5y ago
        > I'm making no claims as to whether or not Snopes omits references Good, they clearly do not omit references, thanks for not challenging that! Snopes has debunked hundreds of liberal falsehoods. Same thing as your grandma fallacy, er, example right? Those falsehoods the liberals said about Trump are actually true?
      - qkqk 5y ago
        > the logical fallacies are hurting my brain Like your "they don't omit references ever" straw man? "This one case" meaning one of the most significant and contested events of the US election? Surely their far-left agenda would prevent them from publishing this? This isn't "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" level of insignificance.
  - psychometry 5y ago
    Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who thinks that modifying your stance when presented with new evidence is bad because it's "flip-flopping"?
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    The problem with fact checkers is that they're being brought into a different problem domain than what their practice is designed to combat. Social media companies more or less deputized them to be sources of truth; which carries bigger implications (albeit not as bad as people make it out to be) than just giving your opinion about a particular bit of information. When Snopes says "the lab leak theory isn't real", they're basing it off of scientific research carried out early in the pandemic which claimed that the virus didn't look engineered. That is, effectively, an expert opinion - something close to truth but still subject to change should new information come to light. It's entirely reasonable for a fact checker to rely on that information at that time, as well as change their opinion in response to new information.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      The bigger problem is that it wan't even an expert opinion. It was actually a political opinion coming from the mouths of experts. Here's my proof: Many of the scientists have now admitted that they refrained from publicly acknowledging the evidence that the virus may have been engineered in the Wuhan lab. Alina Chan was one of those experts who says this now: "... it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory... It never occurred to these "scientists" that claiming the virus came from bats because they eat bats in China is the more "xenophobic" thing and not the possible lab leak caused due to poor handling by "scientists".
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative. You can, but it will then be obvious to anyone familiar with the references or who has the power of reasoning that you have failed (innocently or not) to consider them, not that you have found something that debunks them.
- luckylion 5y ago
  But that doesn't matter, does it? Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what's up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well. The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers. "No need to look further, Snopes said it's true". Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you're wrong, but they're just some random blogger and nobody reads them. And on the off-chance that someone big picks them up, you apologize, adjust the verdict, and move on. You don't need total control over the information of 100% of the population. Having a lot of control over the information diet of 70% of the population is great already.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > But that doesn't matter, does it? Yes, it does. > Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what’s up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well. They will be able to do so…by reviewing and evaluating information from sources that provide the evidence and logic on which they rest conclusions. That a “fact checker” is such a source is…clearly something that matters. > The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers. And the point of providing support is to provide the ability for the readers that are willing to do more legwork to evaluate the claims, which is also how a fact checker gets (or loses, either because it fails to do this or because following back doesn’t support their claims) the reputation which allows them to be trusted by the users that don’t do the extra legwork. Same as any other source, because all a fact checker is is another research source that happens to be focussed on claims of current salience and controversy. > “No need to look further, Snopes said it’s true”. Which only holds up as a long as Snopes reputation holds up. > Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you’re wrong, but they’re just some random blogger and nobody reads them. That would be a problem in a world where Snopes was the sole and universally accepted “fact checker” and every other source of information was regarded as “just a random blogger”. But there are lots of fact checkers (both standalone and as part of media organizations), and a lot of focus by interested parties with very influential platforms on the reliability of various entities that hold themselves out as fact checkers or other fact sources.
Natsu 5y ago
I've found that they don't generally omit stuff, but the headlines and overall evaluations they give are suspect on more contentious items, almost to the point of a motte and bailey. So someone looking at the summaries will be mislead, but there's a more defensible opinion in the article proper. Now, they do pull tricks like choosing which version of a claim to debunk and sometimes seemingly hunting for more obscure weak man versions of a claim than the more popular ones. Or they will "fact check" something that is clearly an opinion, like someone's read of someone else's motives. The way I see it, though, they're hardly unique in this. Anyone skimming headlines is going to be badly mislead from nearly any source whatsoever.

You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative.

by nsizx 5y ago

You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative.

velcii 5y ago

It might be time to rename IT as MIT, stands for Mis-information technology, which is what it is, as of now..

qkqk 5y ago

Remind me of their narrative again? They say that > "Trump did not explicitly tell people to 'storm' or 'breach' or 'break into' the [US] Capitol." and included the reasoning that > the president called on supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” march or walk to the Capitol ...but wait, their far-left narrative! Why didn't they omit those references and reasoning?! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor...

busymom0 5y ago
Almost all these “fact checkers” exposed themselves on the lab leak theory which they had to redact after 1.5 years. Relying on any of them as a source of “truth” is asking for trouble. They are more of a narrative check.
- farp 5y ago
  Parent comment is just a rehashing of a Fox News article. Seeing this more often on HN. https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checkers-practice-caution-lab-leak-about-face.amp https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checker...
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Good lord. I barely made a short 3 sentence long observational comment. What does it have to do with fox? You are basically doing an hominem attack. And for what it's worth, no, I haven't followed corporate media (including cnn, msnbc, fox, nytimes, washington post etc). I pay for independent journalists on substack and locals instead. Also the link which you provided is referring to RealClearPolitics being the real source, not fox. fox is doing an opinion piece on what RealClearPolitics reported. Exact same stuff which other left leaning sources do.
    - farp 5y ago
      > You are basically doing an hominem attack. Were you trying to spell "ad hominem?" > fox is doing an opinion piece on what RealClearPolitics reported Right, which is the argument I said you regurgitated. It's such a cliché even Fox News already moved on to new talking points.
- qkqk 5y ago
  Snopes didn't, they reference a medical journal article from 1.5 years ago as evidence. Which presumably you agree with...oops! [1] Back on topic: why didn't they omit those references and reasoning regarding the Capitol?! https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/02/covid-19-why-the-lab-leak-theory-should-be-formally-investigated/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/02/covid-19-why-the-lab-...
  - spiderice 5y ago
    > why didn't they omit those references and reasoning regarding the Capitol?! Your argument seems to be: Because Snopes didn't omit references in this one case, they don't omit references ever. I've got no dog in this fight, but please, the logical fallacies are hurting my brain.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      The lack of evidence is your evidence?
      - spiderice 5y ago
        What do you mean "your evidence"? I'm making no claims as to whether or not Snopes omits references. I'm merely pointing out that "My Grandma smokes and she's 100 years old" is not evidence that smoking doesn't kill.
        qkqk 5y ago
        > I'm making no claims as to whether or not Snopes omits references Good, they clearly do not omit references, thanks for not challenging that! Snopes has debunked hundreds of liberal falsehoods. Same thing as your grandma fallacy, er, example right? Those falsehoods the liberals said about Trump are actually true?
    - qkqk 5y ago
      > the logical fallacies are hurting my brain Like your "they don't omit references ever" straw man? "This one case" meaning one of the most significant and contested events of the US election? Surely their far-left agenda would prevent them from publishing this? This isn't "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" level of insignificance.
- psychometry 5y ago
  Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who thinks that modifying your stance when presented with new evidence is bad because it's "flip-flopping"?
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  The problem with fact checkers is that they're being brought into a different problem domain than what their practice is designed to combat. Social media companies more or less deputized them to be sources of truth; which carries bigger implications (albeit not as bad as people make it out to be) than just giving your opinion about a particular bit of information. When Snopes says "the lab leak theory isn't real", they're basing it off of scientific research carried out early in the pandemic which claimed that the virus didn't look engineered. That is, effectively, an expert opinion - something close to truth but still subject to change should new information come to light. It's entirely reasonable for a fact checker to rely on that information at that time, as well as change their opinion in response to new information.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    The bigger problem is that it wan't even an expert opinion. It was actually a political opinion coming from the mouths of experts. Here's my proof: Many of the scientists have now admitted that they refrained from publicly acknowledging the evidence that the virus may have been engineered in the Wuhan lab. Alina Chan was one of those experts who says this now: "... it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory... It never occurred to these "scientists" that claiming the virus came from bats because they eat bats in China is the more "xenophobic" thing and not the possible lab leak caused due to poor handling by "scientists".

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative. You can, but it will then be obvious to anyone familiar with the references or who has the power of reasoning that you have failed (innocently or not) to consider them, not that you have found something that debunks them.

luckylion 5y ago
But that doesn't matter, does it? Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what's up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well. The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers. "No need to look further, Snopes said it's true". Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you're wrong, but they're just some random blogger and nobody reads them. And on the off-chance that someone big picks them up, you apologize, adjust the verdict, and move on. You don't need total control over the information of 100% of the population. Having a lot of control over the information diet of 70% of the population is great already.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But that doesn't matter, does it? Yes, it does. > Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what’s up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well. They will be able to do so…by reviewing and evaluating information from sources that provide the evidence and logic on which they rest conclusions. That a “fact checker” is such a source is…clearly something that matters. > The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers. And the point of providing support is to provide the ability for the readers that are willing to do more legwork to evaluate the claims, which is also how a fact checker gets (or loses, either because it fails to do this or because following back doesn’t support their claims) the reputation which allows them to be trusted by the users that don’t do the extra legwork. Same as any other source, because all a fact checker is is another research source that happens to be focussed on claims of current salience and controversy. > “No need to look further, Snopes said it’s true”. Which only holds up as a long as Snopes reputation holds up. > Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you’re wrong, but they’re just some random blogger and nobody reads them. That would be a problem in a world where Snopes was the sole and universally accepted “fact checker” and every other source of information was regarded as “just a random blogger”. But there are lots of fact checkers (both standalone and as part of media organizations), and a lot of focus by interested parties with very influential platforms on the reliability of various entities that hold themselves out as fact checkers or other fact sources.

Natsu 5y ago

I've found that they don't generally omit stuff, but the headlines and overall evaluations they give are suspect on more contentious items, almost to the point of a motte and bailey. So someone looking at the summaries will be mislead, but there's a more defensible opinion in the article proper. Now, they do pull tricks like choosing which version of a claim to debunk and sometimes seemingly hunting for more obscure weak man versions of a claim than the more popular ones. Or they will "fact check" something that is clearly an opinion, like someone's read of someone else's motives. The way I see it, though, they're hardly unique in this. Anyone skimming headlines is going to be badly mislead from nearly any source whatsoever.