NY Magazine Fact Checker EXPOSED! Thoughts?

[Juxtapose]

If you can't sit through a video that's less than 4 minutes then I can't respond to you 🤷‍♂️

No bullshit, no anonymous opinions. You own what you say.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

There isn't much context here. As critical as I usually am about mainstream media, this video by itself doesn't really say much. The girl was in a tricky position, the guy was in a tricky position. We don't know who they are or who they answer to.

Or even what the original article was about.

But I've seen this guy before. If I was a betting man, I'd say these guys did some kind of especially bad hit piece on him after he talked about some kind of article they did about Balenciaga or something and now they're trying to figure out a way to get in his head a little better. Probably cover their asses a bit too.

[TheSpaceGnome]

The entire concept of relying on a "fact checker" defeats the whole point of verification.

There is no difference between a "fact checker" source, and any other source in terms of reliability.

To think otherwise is just foolish.

[goaded]

Fact checkers show their work so you can check them.
www.politifact.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

www.google.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

Fact checkers are partisan hacks.

[goaded]

No, all that shows is one fact checker was a partisan hack. Others show some bias (but you can still read the sources they used to come to their conclusions).

Then you have the NY Post and Washington Examiner pretending that it's evidence of bias when 74 of the 98 statements PolitiFact rated false in a year were made by Republicans, rather than the far more likely explanation that Republicans lie a lot more.

I mean George Santos will be good for a dozen or more just in the last six months.

[Juxtapose]

"Then you have the NY Post and Washington Examiner pretending that it's evidence of bias when 74 of the 98 statements PolitiFact rated false in a year were made by Republicans, rather than the far more likely explanation that Republicans lie a lot more."

That's partisan bullshit and you know it. Both of the major political parties in the United States lie as readily as they breathe.

[goaded]

Seriously? Here's the New York Post (the New York Post!) on George Santos:

"He’s not Jewish, he didn’t go to ritzy New York City schools and apparently he sometimes goes by a secret alias."

"The freshman politician faces investigations at the local, state and federal levels in connection to the funding of his House campaign — as well as in Brazil for alleged check fraud."
nypost.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

You found one guy who lied, you want a cookie?

[goaded]

Are you f*cking kidding me? Didn't you notice the former president? They both lie like they breathe. You can keep pretending that it's normal, but it's not.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded like Joe Biden doesn't? Like Obama didn't lie out of his fucking teeth either? Like Bill Clinton didn't lie and also open the floodgates for corporations to fuck us?

Are *YOU* fucking kidding me?

[goaded]

OK, even if that were even slightly comparable (it's not even remotely), your " You found one guy who lied, you want a cookie? " is hugely ironic, considering that was exactly your attitude to fact checkers.

And WTF do you think Reagan, Bush and Bush did?

[TheSpaceGnome]

@goaded Reading text on a website is not verification. there is no benefit to "citing the source" of information if you aren't going to the location to verify it yourself.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Everyone who gives news of any sort is a liar, all of them, even the most reputable, even the ones claiming to out the liars, they are all going to misrepresent something or someone at some point.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Human beings have this urge to know everything that ever happened anywhere.

Well, you can't, so tough shit.

[goaded]

"Reading text on a website is not verification. there is no benefit to "citing the source" of information if you aren't going to the location to verify it yourself."

Of course there is. It's called trust. If every time you do check an site's sources you find that they have reported those sources correctly, you can start to trust them and check less frequently.

What makes no sense is trusting an outlet that doesn't give you the sources they relied on.

There's also critical ignoring. That's when you've established that a source is fundamentally untrustworthy and not worth your time. Like James O'Keefe and Project Veritas.

Have you heard of "Critical Ignoring"? ↗

[TheSpaceGnome]

@goaded Fuck trust, trust is for idiots. I'll stick with science, and admitting when I don't actually know if something is true or not, you know, like a sane person..

Critical ignoring is stupid too, a person can lie or be wrong 1,000 times, and be correct/honest the 1,001th time.

You have to personally verify EVERY SINGLE TIME, WITH ANY CLAIM, FROM ANYONE, or you don't know shit, and are just pretending that you do lol.

[TheSpaceGnome]

The difference between you and me, is I'd rather DO the science, than trust it.

If I have to trust a claim, it's no better than religion at that point. So in situations where I can't do the science (for practical, financial, moral, or safety reasons), and math/logic can't deduce it, then I remain agnostic on the matter, as everyone should.

[goaded]

Oh, look, it's the fallacy of the excluded middle again. Just because nothing is 100% knowable from the quantum levels up that doesn't mean nothing is knowable.

Did you type your message, or do you just think you did? Did I respond to your message, or did random factors cause this response to appear on your screen? You know you did, and you know this isn't random.

It's not being a "sane person" to need to "personally verify EVERY SINGLE TIME, WITH ANY CLAIM, FROM ANYONE", it's ridiculous. What you can do is test a claim, by picking some points and seeing if they're supported by evidence.

"If I have to trust a claim, it's no better than religion at that point. So in situations where I can't do the science (for practical, financial, moral, or safety reasons), and math/logic can't deduce it, then I remain agnostic on the matter, as everyone should."
Rubbish. You can't do all the science involved in driving a car, but you know they work.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded of course you would want to ignore project veritas because they keep exposing all the deep state shit you want to protect 🤭

[Juxtapose]

And why do you mention Bush and those other people like I care about them? I fucking hate Bush.

Literally the only politician I like right now is Ron DeSantis but even he could be compromised.

[goaded]

"of course you would want to ignore project veritas"
I don't want to, it's just a value judgement based on experience. They're liars.

www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-sting-fails-2017-11

[Juxtapose]

@goaded well even if that is true, you will post sources from CNN, right? Even though they have lied numerous times in the past?

[goaded]

I don't know if I've ever posted a link to CNN where the news wasn't available lots of other places too. Even so, CNNs record of telling the truth is close to 100%, you couldn't possibly say the same for PV.

[Guy13]

Interesting and frightening sex toys and kids. We have lost our minds as a country. Stalin was right.

[OddBeMe]

1) why all the jump cuts?
2) we sure it’s the actual voices of these people?
3) didn’t really hear an exposed part. She didn’t want to be recorded.