4 ms·

Any proper fact checker states the conclusion, and then spends multiple paragraphs describing how the conclusion was made, with sources. Anyone can and should

by croon 5y ago

Any proper fact checker states the conclusion, and then spends multiple paragraphs describing how the conclusion was made, with sources. Anyone can and should attack that reasoning or sourcing if it's lacking or faulty. It usually isn't.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I find the usual fact checkers full of bias to an almost comical degree. Remeber the Russians?
- croon 5y ago
  Statement without justification, then a non sequitor. If you have a point, make it. I am aware of the existence of Russians, what about them?
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    non sequitur - As would be the trustworthyness of fact checkers which also lacks any justification. Some of those sites, I believe it was Snopes or Politifact proposed that the absence of Russian election interference is the lie of the year in 2016 or 2017. This was a complete web of lies to get to Trump for political reasons. Information of this is also highly obscured for political reasons. You find over 1000 of sources without any substantial info aside from some officials stating "high confidence" (translation: highly likely bullshit). "Lie of the year" - ridiculous circus for an embarrising situation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]