>"In short, "fact checkers" don't actually understand the definition of what a fact is, but are quick to declare them, and this is contrary to my experience of

>"In short, "fact checkers" don't actually understand the definition of what a fact is, but are quick to declare them, and this is contrary to my experience of real, actual truth." I'd go a step further and assert that these "fact checkers" play fast and loose with the definition of words and the meaning of language. Here is the absolute best example I can think of: "Did a ‘Convicted Terrorist’ Sit on the Board of a BLM Funding Body?"[1] What's True: Susan Rosenberg has served as vice chair of the board of directors for Thousand Currents, an organization that provides fundraising and fiscal sponsorship for the Black Lives Matter Global Movement. She was an active member of revolutionary left-wing movements whose illegal activities included bombing U.S. government buildings and committing armed robberies. What's Undetermined: In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Edit: I apologize for the unwieldy formatting of this post. But I keep finding more disturbing content from the snopes article that I must share. >"In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that “there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives” with which she and Blunk were caught. ..." >"Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings:" >"proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism." The author(s) are making every rhetorical excuse they can imagine. Yes, she admits in her book she was comfortable with using them. Yes, she did technically get caught with them. But you must keep in mind that there were no immediate plans to use them. >"In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg’s activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such." Look, dear reader, even if everything you learned about this situation is screaming "domestic terrorist", you HAVE to understand that by definition, she can't be one because of all the technicalities I have shown you. Case closed.