all 31 comments

[–]NiceDickBro 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Snopes used to be a really good fun website... It's been a fucking dumpster fire for years now and I refuse to even glance at it or take it as a credible source I'm not sure why they couldn't just stick to fun internet mythology instead of bothering with politics... It's not like political reporting is at a deficit.

[–]ManWithABanana 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All the best articles were written by Barbara anyway before they got divorced.

[–]NiceDickBro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I had no idea they got divorced. Probably explains a bit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

she left him for a rw chad

[–]iraelmossadreddit 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

the influence they have on public opinion is pretty crazy. it's almost a given someone quotes snope in a argument on reddit lol

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Snopes used to be extremely reliable. Unfortunately, institutional capture is a thing, and politics started seeping in. They're still pretty good at debunking hoaxes and fact-checking in general, you just have to take what they say about politics with a grain of salt.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

P.S. Over the last 10 years a pattern of complaints like the samples below prove the owner of this Snopes is politically and money-motivated to twist and manipulate information to fit his desired conclusion, which is usually spurious if it is about a political issue.

https://youtu.be/dMa46XniYfg

https://marthapeveto.org/2013/03/05/alert-snopes-is-a-fraud-and-this-needs-to-be-repeated/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JetgiOEnqjg

https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/permalinkembedsaveparentreportgiveawardreply

https://www.waronwethepeople.com/snopes-fraud/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html

They are not worth a hill of beans when it comes to fact checking unless you want to know about some Guinness world record or some science question. When it comes to fact-checking political shit they are worthless and clever in how they re-position the questions or statement and then give a twisted answer to fit their agenda. They tried to make author Peter Schweitzer out to be a liar yet everything in Schweitzer's book "Secrets of the Empire" is extremely well-documented.

Further Snopes has been sued at least 50 times in the last 10 years and they won only 2 cases and settled out of court on the other cases and always included a gag order in their settlement so people would not learn they had to pay money to avoid going before a jury in an open court room that would make all their dirty laundry, mistakes, and links to George Soros's public information.

[–]Dandelion 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's nearly annoying when someone will quote snopes as a source in a controversial and nuanced argument as if they are the end of all truth in any way.

Even if they didn't have exposed bias, it's difficult to use any ONE website as the end of an argument.

[–]Shadow_Death 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I loved it when Jimmy Dore went after them for their BS "journalism."

Tim said it best, if there is anything that makes a Conservative look good they will fact check it while putting in a false claim so they can put false or mostly false in the field.

Let's be realistic, they are where ex- pornstars go to die.

[–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Whatever you think of Snopes, a seven year old, unsupported rant on some website that also features chemtrail and vaccine conspiracy stories is probably going to do more to harm than help to your position.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nope.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

chemtrails admitted to, vaccines do cause autism

[–]BPirate 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Of course not. Soros and liberal billionaire money is behind their false narratives.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great point, how does Snopes make its money? Donations from special interest groups perhaps?

Snopes: This claim is false. Theres nothing special about these groups that give us money to push their narrative.

[–]solder0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I gotta say I used to love snopes, this is sad. 😢

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Now think back on the arguments that you've won using snopes and reconsider your positions.

[–]solder0 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Truth be told, I've never 'won' any argument online....ever. And I've used more reliable sources too. I'm burned out from that.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not exactly Snopes, but here's another example of a "fact-checking organization" and how they work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vh6hJxRcoU

[–]PencilPusher55 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Snopes actually is accerate you just don't like it cause it dont kiss trumps ass you homo

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

    I don't trust any fact check site. Why do I need somebody to tell me their narrative?

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    it's a nice idea but you can't trust any site, they'll all be biased. Sad truth is all humans lie.

    [–]afgiasbefhgauosflkas 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    when i need to fact check something, i always visit /s/lesbians

    [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Sounds like a better alternative to Snopes.

    [–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Because there are resources that are at least mostly objective and they're useful for getting to the right answers easily

    [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    It's called a search engine, a library, a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Who needs liberal bias?

    [–]yayblueberries 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    But apparently even search engines can now have a liberal bias these days by not allowing certain sites to come up when you search.

    [–]Zahn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    Yes Fedi, Snopes is why you always lose debates. Using Snopes demonstrates that someone is incompetent, and lazy when it comes to hard research. They're spoonfeeding poorly cited sophist drivel. May also partly explain why you are an extremist, with misguided viewpoints.

    [–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    You, the guy who insists that socioeconomics has no significant impact on life outcomes, and who supports this argument with web articles talking about the fact that genetics matter, have no business pontificating about "hard research". And it's only contrast with the people who you typically interact with in your alt-right bubble that "socioeconomics matters a lot" is an extremist position.

    [–]Zahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Intelligence has the greatest impact on socio-economic status and subsequent life outcomes. You're as usual, making excuses and choosing to be wilfully ignorant of an obvious cause-effect. Those web articles outline unbiased research which you still can't apparently comprehend because you have reached a forgone conclusion, and are immune to common sense. Instead relying on a leftist narrative that conflates socio-economics as the single most defining factor in life outcomes.

    Tldr: You are lazy at research and expect Snopes to spoonfeed you low Iq rebuttals.

    [–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Intelligence has the greatest impact on socio-economic status and subsequent life outcomes.

    You see this is actually fine. I know intelligence is important. It could very well be the single most important. As written above, I wouldn't have taken issue.

    It's just that you instead took a different position, one that you appear to have given up defending: that differences in intelligence between races explains the vast majority of disparity in life outcomes. That position was what I found objectionable, and your belief that it was a scientifically sound position delusional.

    [–]Zahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    that differences in intelligence between races explains the vast majority of disparity in life outcomes.

    If certain races/ethnic groups maintain an average and predictable intelligence, it will follow that this intelligence predicates an average socio-economic, and life outcome. Exceptions and outliers apply everywhere, yet on average is true.

    I found objectionable

    You have an emotionally invested interest in this, which often doesn't lead to sound conclusions. It's important to ask ourselves why we have an emotional attachment to a belief, and what would it mean if that were changed.

    I used to think like you too. I was exposed to the same narrative. I saw too many incongruencies and patterns via experiential knowledge. And I objectively went looking for the answer. I didn't find what I wanted to find, and I didn't like it, but the pieces fit...almost perfect. What I found was certainly "closer to the truth" than the explanations that were forced into our heads our whole lives.

    Despite you being a cringe tier redditor, I still like you well enough, Fedi. When you're trying, I appreciate your generally well thought out responses.