4 ms·
>"why did this person lie about her convictions?" This may not have been an intentional lie. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the person who
by BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"why did this person lie about her convictions?"
This may not have been an intentional lie. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the person who tweeted this was just wrong and conflated her history and record. I know the average person knows the words "indicted, charged, convicted, exonerated" etc. but probably can't actually tell you what they mean from a legal standpoint. I feel bad returning to the position of "meaningfully correct, yet technically incorrect" but that's what I sense is really going on. Someone on Twitter said something, it got fact-checked 'till-kingdom-come and now people have wildly different takeaways primarily based on the wording of the communiqué rather than the events it is trying to communicate about.
- ModernMech 5y agoBut if that's the worry, I don't see how this Snopes article actually runs counter to the intent of the original Tweet. If the intent of the tweet was to show that Susan Rosenberg is dangerous, then the Snopes article does a fantastic job of achieving that goal. The tweet was "meaningfully correct, yet technically incorrect", but the fact check was "meaningfully correct, as well as technically incorrect". That's the best kind of correct. The Snopes article gives ample background context, goes over all the alleged crimes in detail, and it's all fully sourced! It's very hard to come away from this Snopes fact check concluding that Susan Rosenberg is not a dangerous individual.