use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
memes
Snopes said it was false. My research is complete.
submitted 5 years ago by JasonCarswell from i.pinimg.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]fred_red_beans 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun - 5 years ago (6 children)
Snopes is for dopes!
[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun - 5 years ago (5 children)
Snopes is for confirmation bias.
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun - 5 years ago (4 children)
Also, Snopes is for confirmation bias.
[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun - 5 years ago (3 children)
Bias Confirmed. Good ol' Snopes...
[–]CompleteDoubterII 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun - 4 years ago (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.
[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 4 years ago (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
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 4 years ago (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?
view the rest of the comments →
[–]fred_red_beans 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun - (6 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun - (5 children)
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun - (4 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun - (3 children)
[–]CompleteDoubterII 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun - (2 children)
[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)