4 ms·
> I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was fals
by ThalesX 4y ago
> I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!"
I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'.
I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
- notahacker 4y agoIf a video claims that the White House "changed the definition" and in fact the White House has always used the same definition, that claim is fake news. Period. What exactly is difficult to understand about that? The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
- ThalesX 4y agoPlease don’t reply to whatever innervated you, but take the time to read the thread and understand what is being discussed.
- notahacker 4y agoI read the thread thanks, and am not the one claiming to have difficulty parsing the GP's argument. Also, I read the Politifact article in question, so I am not labouring under the delusion that the point of contention is whose dictionary should we use rather than is there any truth to video's sensational central claim 'The White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession' which is a hard no, irrespective of whether you believe that the dictionary definition of successive quarters of negative growth is a more parsimonious definition than waiting for the NBER to call it.