Would any anons happen to posses examples of Snopes.com coming to conclusions on things without satisfactory evidence? Some friends of mine are convinced of the site's credibility, but I know I've seen numerous instances of this being refuted here over the years. Unfortunately I did not have the foresight to save these things as I encountered them.
Snopes Credibility
Ian Gonzalez
Josiah Murphy
Snope concludes that Hillary LAUGHING about getting a child rapist SHE KNEW WAS GUILTY acquitted is false. You can literally find recordings on YouTube showing that it is true.
Joseph Myers
I found a few with a quick Google image search.
Do your research.
Brody Phillips
Good topic. I've made mental note of so many examples I've seen over the years but havent kept a list. Where are the autists?
Justin Cooper
Snopes.com's method is pretty much this
>Intelligent person makes case for X
>Some retards translate this as Y
>Snopes debunks Y
>Case closed
Example
>Intelligent person: "Immigrants overrepresented in Swedish crime statistics"
>Retard: "Refugees commit all crimes. OMG!"
>Snopes: "Most criminals are second generation and not refugees. Also they don't commit all crime. This claim is false"
Justin Watson
Andrew Brooks
2
Adam Turner
Whenever snopes prints something, I assume the opposite to be true.
Jayden Gomez
Same here, so you can use it for fact checking. I did a whole stream on this pulling up articles showing that they were blatantly lying.
Carson Ortiz
>Would any anons happen to posses examples of Snopes.com coming to conclusions on things without satisfactory evidence?
snopes.com
>FACT CHECK: Is Samantha Bee’s Husband Fighting to Keep Poor People Out of His Child’s School?
>liberal parents in NYC, including Samantha Bee and her husband, fight desperately to keep their kids' school from moving to a location that would allow poor black and Hispanic students into the mostly white and Asian school
>they said it wasn't racial, prominent news organizations and the school board disagreed
>snopes just took them at face value based on their words and wrote that it wasn't racially motivated because they said "it's because we don't want the added distance" (yeah right)
Adam Thompson
>dailymail.co.uk
"'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)"
Landon Bell
They post facts when they describe an event, but their "rating" system is beyond retarded, and sadly, most people just look at the rating and go "yup, this is fact" even if literally a passage below the rating the rating is refuted
Robert Mitchell
Even Snopes argues to not take them at face-value and to do further research yourself: don't ever assume something is true simply because of authority.
Jacob Smith
their main problem is assuming lack of evidence is evidence against, which is a well known logical fallacy. I also don't keep a list like many others have said but I see it very often. If I remember a recent example they claimed the recent FL bridge that fell apart was not headed by a woman team, labeling the claim as FALSE with no pretense, only because nobody could find evidence it was headed by a woman team and a couple cherry picked internet rumors turned out to be false. Claiming false in that situation is not even poor deductive reasoning, it's a straight up logical fallacy and the only way they could reach that conclusion is through their bias. It should have been "unsubstantiated" at best.
Any website that has a history of such blatant bias in their "fact checking " should not be trusted. Also "factchecking" things that make conservatives look bad happens probably at a 10:1 rate against checking things that make liberals look bad. More blatant bias. And most of the fact checking sites are owned by major liberal donors or they're subsidiary companies of major liberals and anti conservative globalists.
Jayden Miller
also: I remember they refused the same standard applied to Trump's father being arrested at a Klan rally in the 20's or 30's. No proof he was part of the meeting, it was just acknowledged he was there and arrested, maybe as a bystander, when a bunch of people were arrested by cops who just chased everyone that wouldn't leave, including bystanders and Trump Sr.. However, in that case they claimed it was "unproven" Trump Sr. was part of the rally. They didn't even apply their logical fallacy consistently. Their standard is "false" if they want it to be false to serve their agenda and "unproven" when it makes a conservative look bad....they're bias pieces of shit.
Angel Martin
only supreme brainlets even cite snopes as a definitive source without even reading wtf snopes has to say. I stopped using snopes because they will call something false and then not even back it up. They are as credible as any person on the internet with an opinion that lacks any substantiation
Julian Flores
1
Jose Campbell
2
Jordan Long
3
Parker Jones
4
Asher Diaz
5
Grayson Price
He embesseled money for a whore then divorced his wife and married a whore.
Ethan Jackson
William Scott
Yep. It’s likes saying jews own all the banks. Wrong, they don’t own this little shitty Indian bank in Minnesota on a reservation. Even though jews own 99.9999999999999% of the banks
I think these “people” are psychopaths because psychopaths/sociopaths and aspires cannot comprehend or understand anything abstract which included generalizations and context and intent