Snopes is garbage

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Oxford Dictionary)

NEWSPEAK - propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings
( George Orwell, 1984) 

Fletcher: There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. (The Outlaw Josey Wales, 1976).

What's True
Susan Rosenberg  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."( Snopes, 2020) 

Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining Snopes.

4 Likes

No shit. Snopes is a marketing strategy to push bullshit “facts”

4 Likes

Most of the fact check sites are left slanted it’s hillarious.

4 Likes

Wow

SD CARTEL -

Most of the fact check sites are left slanted it’s hillarious.

Most?


 


i have yet to see one that isn’t. 

1 Like

If that's the worat thing about snopes......

its two fat leftists. A husband and wife.

Thats literally all snopes is.

 

“Snopes should fact-check the Presidential debates”

- tards 

2 Likes

You do realize that Snopes provides sources/citations at the bottom.  So while you are certainly free to not like Snopes, they do at least provide a way to follow the information if you would like to try to make your own conclusion.

Any more examples?

sites like snopes are lenses in the prism of independent verification that's necessary to avoid being a confused, misinformed embarrassment in the new media landscape.

they're essential resources but, like literally any other secondary source, they absolutely will burn you if you don't cross reference or individually assess the sources they site.

the difference is that these resources actually have references and sources to check. yes, the people who ran snopes fucked up. the difference between a conservative and a reactionary is that the reactionary throws the baby out with the bathwater.

1 Like

just liek the progressives normally do

debate the specifics of what words "Actually mean", so as to make it seem there is no genreal understanding of said word to invalidate any claims against

 

 

member slick willy saying "depends on what you mean by the word "Was"

2 Likes

What is the world coming to where I can't even trust a website ran by a fat Leftist and a hooker?

3 Likes

Road Warrior Fin - 

You do realize that Snopes provides sources/citations at the bottom.  So while you are certainly free to not like Snopes, they do at least provide a way to follow the information if you would like to try to make your own conclusion.


lol. This is what gets me... I have never read anything on Snopes they didn't back up with linked references anyone can go check out themselves, but according to the OG they're the biggest liars on the internet, and part of some grand conspiracy to inject leftist propaganda into our brains.

Just show us all of the verifiable lies or shut up. This example means nothing. "terrorism" is a nebulous term. Cry me a river.

2 Likes

In Limbo - 

just liek the progressives normally do


debate the specifics of what words "Actually mean", so as to make it seem there is no genreal understanding of said word to invalidate any claims against


 


 


member slick willy saying "depends on what you mean by the word "Was"


that was "is"


attorneys and trained debaters have an imperative to force the definition of terms. it plants the attackers feet in the argument so it can be dealt with precisely.


slate wrote a pretty good commentary on it back in the day:


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/09/bill-clinton-and-the-meaning-of-is.html

mdmrules -
Road Warrior Fin - 

You do realize that Snopes provides sources/citations at the bottom.  So while you are certainly free to not like Snopes, they do at least provide a way to follow the information if you would like to try to make your own conclusion.


lol. This is what gets me... I have never read anything on Snopes they didn't back up with linked references anyone can go check out themselves, but according to the OG they're the biggest liars on the internet, and part of some grand conspiracy to inject leftist propaganda into our brains.

Just show us all of the verifiable lies or shut up. This example means nothing. "terrorism" is a nebulous term. Cry me a river.

when those sources include opinion articles from places like "Slate" and "HuffPo".....

1 Like
In Limbo - 
mdmrules -
Road Warrior Fin - 

You do realize that Snopes provides sources/citations at the bottom.  So while you are certainly free to not like Snopes, they do at least provide a way to follow the information if you would like to try to make your own conclusion.


lol. This is what gets me... I have never read anything on Snopes they didn't back up with linked references anyone can go check out themselves, but according to the OG they're the biggest liars on the internet, and part of some grand conspiracy to inject leftist propaganda into our brains.

Just show us all of the verifiable lies or shut up. This example means nothing. "terrorism" is a nebulous term. Cry me a river.


when those sources include opinion articles from places like "Slate" and "HuffPo".....



 


examples?


 


i've never seen an editorial cited unless the editorial, itself, includes a direct citation as in an interview or verifiable data reference.


the citation format sites like snopes use references specifics. it doens't just say "hey, read this article! look into it!"

truthorfiction.com is a more reliable source. Snopes hides their funding and there has been serious speculation it is bought and paid for by the extreme left. Though this shouldn't be considered enough to confirm the connection, their "confirmations" eerily echoes what the mainstream media regurgitates. So if that doesn't  tell you something, I dont know what to say from here.

I have a brother in law who is far left and is a devout snopes fan. He gets legit pissed if anyone even slightly criticizes Snopes. 

Peixes - 
In Limbo - 
mdmrules -
Road Warrior Fin - 

You do realize that Snopes provides sources/citations at the bottom.  So while you are certainly free to not like Snopes, they do at least provide a way to follow the information if you would like to try to make your own conclusion.


lol. This is what gets me... I have never read anything on Snopes they didn't back up with linked references anyone can go check out themselves, but according to the OG they're the biggest liars on the internet, and part of some grand conspiracy to inject leftist propaganda into our brains.

Just show us all of the verifiable lies or shut up. This example means nothing. "terrorism" is a nebulous term. Cry me a river.


when those sources include opinion articles from places like "Slate" and "HuffPo".....



 


examples?


 


i've never seen an editorial cited unless the editorial, itself, includes a direct citation as in an interview or verifiable data reference.


the citation format sites like snopes use references specifics. it doens't just say "hey, read this article! look into it!"


These guys are functionally illiterate tardos with no original ideas.

"Snopes BAD" is as far as it goes. No one will provide any examples of Snopes being caught lying because there aren't any.

The guy you're asking probably doesn't know what a citation is. You think the Podunk high school they barely attended had term papers in remedial English?