6 ms·

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 includ

by 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".

by qkqk 5y ago

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".