3 ms·

So called fact checking often is not about truth, but subjectivity.

greggoB 11mo ago
So what is your proposed mechanism for attempting to maintain a commonly-observable reality? People have shown throughout history that they have an incentive to bend truths to suit their narratives, often to the detriment of society. How would you address this?
- mlrtime 11mo ago
  The folks that are selectively using "facts" to push a narrative can continue to do so, The US DOS is not stopping them.
  - greggoB 11mo ago
    I didn't quite get what you were saying here
    - mlrtime 11mo ago
      The fact checkers can continue to do what they are doing now, they just won't get a visa. They aren't being stopped from doing their job, just can't do it in the US. (Late reply, sorry)
      - greggoB 11mo ago
        I get that your overall sentiment is fact-checkers aren't doing legitimate work, but I'm not sure if you see that the choice you describe can literally only reinforce that sentiment. If your opinion is that fact-checking as a concept is bad then that's one thing, but if not then I'd be interested to know what alternative(s) you'd suggest
- nephihaha 11mo ago
  The first would be being honest enough to say that many statements are not hard and fast facts, but opinions. If we say ice is frozen water, then that is a solid fact (leaving aside dry ice etc). But if we say such-and-such is a good/bad leader that is often mostly based on one's opinion of what good/bad leadership entails. In many cases, one person's good leader is another's bad leader.
  - aeonik 11mo ago
    While technically true, you have censored and suppressed the truth. Almost all ice has mineral impurities in it, and is therefore a mineral. Therefore water is actually lava (molten ice) and should be referred to as such. Your depiction of ice being merely "frozen water" as a fact, and not emphasizing it's equality with lava is classist and clearly agenda driven. /s
  - greggoB 11mo ago
    It's often not a hard and fast distinction. Calling a leader good/bad because of policy or manner would surely lean more to opinion. If that leader definitively partook in activities that are the subject of the Epstein files, then that's less opinion and more a question of the factual accuracy of the recorded material (assuming it exists). Regardless, said leader would obviously have incentive to cast it as a lie
nutjob2 11mo ago
Only the words that drip from Dear Leader's mouth are the golden truth. Every day I check Truth Social to find out what I think.
- nephihaha 11mo ago
  "Dear Leader" contradicts himself within the same sentence. I've witnessed it myself.
croon 11mo ago
I hear this a lot. I never see examples. The fact checking I've looked at starts with something like a claim, then dives into context, then lists supporting evidence of either verifying that claim or disproving it, leaning on that supporting evidence. For fact checking not to be valuable, either the supporting evidence is wrong, the reasoning leading from that to the conclusion is wrong, or something third is wrong. If that is the case in fact checking, that should absolutely be criticized, and any fact checker with integrity would put up a correction. For all the vague critique against "fact checking" I've heard, I've never actually seen anyone give examples. If the critique instead is "they selectively only fact check this and not that", the conclusion should not be that fact checking is bad, but that more is needed.
- nephihaha 11mo ago
  Surprisingly few things are solid facts. Many of them are opinions, especially in politics, culture and celebrity reporting. Snopes is one of the most beloved fact checking services, yet I have seen them make questionable claims. I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? It would have been more honest to say that most of them are fake. Not only would it be possible to make such a video, there is considerable evidence that some have been made. Saddam Hussein and his son are said to have enjoyed watching videos of executions. Now that may be propaganda against Hussein, but he would have been capable of sourcing such material and watching it. At least one murder was streamed on Facebook Live and someone was arrested for it. I'd say that counted as such.
  - croon 11mo ago
    > I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? I'm curious about that too. Is there an archive link or something you can provide? I can't seem to find that claim.
    - relaxing 11mo ago
      You’re going to argue with the Snuff Videos Truther? This is the funniest example of “Which views exactly? / Oh, you know the ones.”

So what is your proposed mechanism for attempting to maintain a commonly-observable reality? People have shown throughout history that they have an incentive to bend truths to suit their narratives, often to the detriment of society. How would you address this?

mlrtime 11mo ago
The folks that are selectively using "facts" to push a narrative can continue to do so, The US DOS is not stopping them.
- greggoB 11mo ago
  I didn't quite get what you were saying here
  - mlrtime 11mo ago
    The fact checkers can continue to do what they are doing now, they just won't get a visa. They aren't being stopped from doing their job, just can't do it in the US. (Late reply, sorry)
    - greggoB 11mo ago
      I get that your overall sentiment is fact-checkers aren't doing legitimate work, but I'm not sure if you see that the choice you describe can literally only reinforce that sentiment. If your opinion is that fact-checking as a concept is bad then that's one thing, but if not then I'd be interested to know what alternative(s) you'd suggest
nephihaha 11mo ago
The first would be being honest enough to say that many statements are not hard and fast facts, but opinions. If we say ice is frozen water, then that is a solid fact (leaving aside dry ice etc). But if we say such-and-such is a good/bad leader that is often mostly based on one's opinion of what good/bad leadership entails. In many cases, one person's good leader is another's bad leader.
- aeonik 11mo ago
  While technically true, you have censored and suppressed the truth. Almost all ice has mineral impurities in it, and is therefore a mineral. Therefore water is actually lava (molten ice) and should be referred to as such. Your depiction of ice being merely "frozen water" as a fact, and not emphasizing it's equality with lava is classist and clearly agenda driven. /s
- greggoB 11mo ago
  It's often not a hard and fast distinction. Calling a leader good/bad because of policy or manner would surely lean more to opinion. If that leader definitively partook in activities that are the subject of the Epstein files, then that's less opinion and more a question of the factual accuracy of the recorded material (assuming it exists). Regardless, said leader would obviously have incentive to cast it as a lie

nutjob2 11mo ago

Only the words that drip from Dear Leader's mouth are the golden truth. Every day I check Truth Social to find out what I think.

nephihaha 11mo ago
"Dear Leader" contradicts himself within the same sentence. I've witnessed it myself.

croon 11mo ago

I hear this a lot. I never see examples. The fact checking I've looked at starts with something like a claim, then dives into context, then lists supporting evidence of either verifying that claim or disproving it, leaning on that supporting evidence. For fact checking not to be valuable, either the supporting evidence is wrong, the reasoning leading from that to the conclusion is wrong, or something third is wrong. If that is the case in fact checking, that should absolutely be criticized, and any fact checker with integrity would put up a correction. For all the vague critique against "fact checking" I've heard, I've never actually seen anyone give examples. If the critique instead is "they selectively only fact check this and not that", the conclusion should not be that fact checking is bad, but that more is needed.

nephihaha 11mo ago
Surprisingly few things are solid facts. Many of them are opinions, especially in politics, culture and celebrity reporting. Snopes is one of the most beloved fact checking services, yet I have seen them make questionable claims. I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? It would have been more honest to say that most of them are fake. Not only would it be possible to make such a video, there is considerable evidence that some have been made. Saddam Hussein and his son are said to have enjoyed watching videos of executions. Now that may be propaganda against Hussein, but he would have been capable of sourcing such material and watching it. At least one murder was streamed on Facebook Live and someone was arrested for it. I'd say that counted as such.
- croon 11mo ago
  > I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? I'm curious about that too. Is there an archive link or something you can provide? I can't seem to find that claim.
  - relaxing 11mo ago
    You’re going to argue with the Snuff Videos Truther? This is the funniest example of “Which views exactly? / Oh, you know the ones.”