Uber Drivers Forum banner
81 - 87 of 87 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
270 Posts
Thank you! That's hilarious.

Let me get this straight. You don't have to look at the actual examples presented in the article I provided to you. All you have to do is going to see if the fact check people have smeared the domain name that it's published on. So you can have someone "poison the well" for you, and you smugly reject every word of the article as proven to be false! This saves you the mental effort of actually reading anything at all. It's a well-written article. It provides all the exact examples from the fact-checkers. There is no spin. Just quoting the fact checkers and pointing out where they are biased politically. For example, two people make the same statement, and your fact-checkers claim the conservative is speaking falsely. The other guy is just fine. You really did your homework there, bud.

Mental midgets everywhere would be proud of your work. You sure settled those issues, boy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Thank you! That's hilarious.

Let me get this straight. You don't have to look at the actual examples presented in the article I provided to you. All you have to do is going to see if the fact check people have smeared the domain name that it's published on. So you can have someone "poison the well" for you, and you smugly reject every word of the article as proven to be false! This saves you the mental effort of actually reading anything at all. It's a well-written article. It provides all the exact examples from the fact-checkers. There is no spin. Just quoting the fact checkers and pointing out where they are biased politically. For example, two people make the same statement, and your fact-checkers claim the conservative is speaking falsely. The other guy is just fine. You really did your homework there, bud.

Mental midgets everywhere would be proud of your work.
I read the article. It was an okay article. But you threw the article at me as if it discredited the site I had just linked to, which it does not. So I posted what the site had to say about your source site. And not surprisingly it shows:

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
270 Posts
To be honest, I didn't mean to attack you or even the particular link you provided. I find this year's use of Fact Checkers for everything to be a tragic way of shutting off people's minds. I appreciate it if you actually did look at the article, maybe I misread you.

The problem of fact checkers is that their judgments tend to be entirely tribal based. If I'm not mistaken almost all of the Fact Checkers are liberal websites, that make their living attacking conservative websites. Well, it's not so hard to figure out what their judgments are going to be.

Feel free to disagree but even the original Snopes has some pretty weird credentials.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
To be honest, I didn't mean to attack you or even the particular link you provided. I find this year's use of Fact Checkers for everything to be a tragic way of shutting off people's minds. I appreciate it if you actually did look at the article, maybe I misread you.

The problem of fact checkers is that their judgments tend to be entirely tribal based. If I'm not mistaken almost all of the Fact Checkers are liberal websites, that make their living attacking conservative websites. Well, it's not so hard to figure out what their judgments are going to be.

Feel free to disagree but even the original Snopes has some pretty weird credentials.
"To be honest, I didn't mean to attack you"

Dude, you edited your post to call me "boy" so let's not pretend you didn't mean to attack me. I lived in the south. I know what it means when someone goes out of their way to call someone boy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
270 Posts
I just re-read that again. You're right, that was probably a bit too snarky. Do you want me to apologize, or? What I was really addressing was not necessarily you, but I was speaking to the liberal that would let a fact checker website make their decisions. Nothing personal, dude. We friends?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
I just re-read that again. You're right, that was probably a bit too snarky. Do you want me to apologize, or? What I was really addressing was not necessarily you, but I was speaking to the liberal that would let a fact checker website make their decisions. Nothing personal, dude. We friends?
We're good.
 
81 - 87 of 87 Posts
Top