all 36 comments

[–]magnora7 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

The thing with snopes is they're accurate, but they never address the real question at hand.

Like I was reading one about 5G being banned, and the question was "Why did Israel develop 5G and then ban it in their own country?"

and the answer spent 7 paragraphs explaining how Israel did not actually develop 5G, and completely ignored the "banned in Israel" part, and then declared it debunked.

So they pair wrong questions with important questions, then debunk the wrong question and call the whole issue resolved.

Almost every serious question on snopes is like this, especially if it makes certain groups look bad.

[–]Icalasari 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

[–]HopeThatHalps 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

A nut ball guest on Alex Jones says its true! It must be true!

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Alex Jones said "they" were going to come for him and shut him down. They did.

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He's still making new shows.

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

Is he allowed to have a bank account?

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

I'm sure some bank will take his business.

[–]fred_red_beans 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Snopes is for dopes!

[–]useless_aether 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

nope to snopes

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Snopes is for confirmation bias.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Also, Snopes is for confirmation bias.

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

Bias Confirmed. Good ol' Snopes...

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

Avoiding Snopes to avoid your beliefs being challenged is also confirmation bias. Although I'm pretty sure it is a peddler for the official story, and is mostly wrong, still consider what it says.

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

Although I'm pretty sure it is a peddler for the official story, and is mostly wrong, still consider what it says.

It is a peddler for the officials story, and is intentionally misleading.

Their "evidence" is questionable, at best. Why should it be considered?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Snopes is often correct, but the problem is they re-contextualize the question to a broader or narrower scope than what the original intent was, and then disprove it on that scope, while avoiding the very original intent of the allegation. So it's all factually correct, but it answers just ever so slightly the wrong question. That's my experience with it anyway

[–]StalwartJames 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Do you feel that local residents should have the right to refuse to have fluoride added to their local water supply?

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Somewhat, yes. There are expensive filters which one could install to remove undesired elements. For example:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/527125-does-reverse-osmosis-remove-fluoride/

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wouldn't it be more practical to have provide fluoridated water only to those who are interested in it?

Wouldn't you agree that the fact that it is imposed is a problem?

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Wouldn't it be more practical to have provide fluoridated water only to those who are interested in it?

How do you propose to do that? The cost of running separate pipes to each residence and business may be prohibitive.

Wouldn't you agree that the fact that it is imposed is a problem?

Not necessarily. No one is required to use the fluoridated water.

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

Actually, I'd propose removing fluorinated water from municipal water, and setting fluorinated bottled water to those who wanted it.

It belongs behind a store counter. Next to the chewing tobacco and cigarettes.
But I wouldn't make it illegal, either.

[–]Icalasari 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll take that. Better alternative than flat out denying, plus, well, for those of us who do think fluorine helps, it'll either help prove it (people who get that water would have better, healthier teeth) or disprove it, especially if the bottled water is municipal with fluoride added after the fact

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds reasonable enough. At the moment though, there would be a cost associate with moving to your proposed system. And just so you know, fluoride is not the only thing added to municipal water.

[–]StalwartJames 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Perhaps they should, but this could be more because of Libertarian ideals.

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

Isn't local control a fundamental principle of a democratic society?
What does that have to do with american libertarianism?

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

Sorry, I don't know a lot about politics or the mechanics of democracy.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Did you know that libertarian means socialist everywhere but the US.

[–]hennaojisan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Years after 9/11 they kept pushing the official narrative and I stopped going there. I think they have a relationship with a well-known intelligence agency.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Snopes to me is like Officer Barbrady from South Park.

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

That's a great analogy.

[–]Robin 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/07/believe/ Hmmm, Snopes is only semi-official so that's not conclusive proof it's true :-)

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

I officially deny it.

[–]useless_aether 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

a photo of a sloth would be even more appropriate

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

Remember when Snopes was a refreshing source of information on urban myths? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Now I'm starting to question whether Richard Gere really did stick a gerbil up his ass or not.

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

This image was used in this must see documentary: "Beyond Censorship: Destroying Free Thought Online" by Truthstream Media (2019-03-29) /s/MediaAnalysis/comments/i37/beyond_censorship_destroying_free_thought_online/