What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

S'Nopes! The ***Kardinal Offishal*** Fact-Checker Thread Of Satire Sites (1 Viewer)

rockaction

rockaction

Footballguy
So I just did a Snopes "fact check." Thank God they disabused me of the notion I was having. In addition, I'd like to thank them for spelling the name of the person they were "fact checking" about wrong.

That's outstanding. I really trust that article. I've been reading these "fact checks" for years now. They draw conclusions based on a horrible understanding of inference, logical progression, and other such things.

Check in here if you've ever completely disagreed with these checks of "fact."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
So I just did a Snopes "fact check." Thank God they disabused me of the notion I was having. In addition, I'd like to thank them for spelling the name of the person they were "fact checking" about wrong.

That's outstanding. I really trust that article. I've been reading these "fact checks" for years now. They draw conclusions based on a horrible understanding of inference, logical progression, and other such things.

Check in here if you've ever completely disagreed with these checks of "fact."
Click to expand...
Whoa...slow down with all the details.

 
I was researching Catharine MacKinnon and the oft-attributed claim (which I remember being different than the actual quote) that she had said that all penis/vaginal sex was "rape."

Turns out Snopes says that isn't the case, but they can't even get her name right. Good work by the ever-vigilant brigade of fact checkers. 

 
Snopes plays with words and phrases for sure. They can take two stories that are both 95% inaccurate and call one false and the other misleading.

 
Yes I have. Snopes & Factcheck are blogs, plain and simple. Sometimes you click on the link and it’s not the conclusion they claim or it’s just too complex. 

I will say right wing sites seem to like to play ‘gotcha’ with these sometimes and it always kind of astounds me why they just don’t reference the links themselves. But I think they’ve got some sort of weird aversion to outwardly showing they’re relying on mainstream journalism when they’re the supposed enemy. Other RW sites like zerohedge will do this too. Just.... link to the story man, none of this roundabout hibertyjibberty is necessary.

 
rockaction said:
I was researching Catharine MacKinnon and the oft-attributed claim (which I remember being different than the actual quote) that she had said that all penis/vaginal sex was "rape."

Turns out Snopes says that isn't the case, but they can't even get her name right. Good work by the ever-vigilant brigade of fact checkers. 
Click to expand...
Her first name is an unusual spelling of a common name. Since no person— fact checker or not— is perfect, I feel fine about giving their titling writer a full pass here.

See also: a sportswriter loses no credibility spelling the longtime Heat guard’s name as “Dwayne Wade”. At least not a one-off mistake.

 
rockaction said:
I was researching Catharine MacKinnon and the oft-attributed claim (which I remember being different than the actual quote) that she had said that all penis/vaginal sex was "rape."

Turns out Snopes says that isn't the case, but they can't even get her name right. Good work by the ever-vigilant brigade of fact checkers. 
Click to expand...
It's spelled right in the article, just not the title.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
Which part of their write up isn’t true?
Click to expand...
Calling it mislabeled is disingenuous. It's a real photo but the context is 100% false. Just call it false. 

Here is snopes explanation of mislabled.

Miscaptioned

This rating is used with photographs and videos that are “real” (i.e., not the product, partially or wholly, of digital manipulation) but are nonetheless misleading because they are accompanied by explanatory material that falsely describes their origin, context, and/or meaning.

Aka false.  Facebook uses snopes to verify stories. Anything False is not shown on Facebook.  Misleading content is still distributed.  This gives Snopes the room to position stories as they choose. 

 
squistion said:
You have made this claim numerous times before about Snopes, but it is not true. Their conclusions are accurate based on what they report, but you don't accept it and come up with some dubious link or odd interpretation of their sources to discredit it. They have made mistakes in past but have immediately corrected the record when they were made aware of any errors.  
Click to expand...
Look I'm sorry to tell you but you can look at it yourself. I'm not saying it happens every time but it happens. I'll give you an example. In the Trump thread the current claim is that Obama had 'cages" in 2014 (or 2015) and Snopes is cited to for that proposition. Snopes says Trump's claim that Obama was putting children in cages like he has is 'True'. Do you agree with that? I looked. Snopes has a link to Jeh Johnson's speech at Aspen, it has a McAllen TX area news report from the time and it has a Phoenix news report at the time. The impression it leaves is that Trump's policies have been in effect since 2014. Now looking at that, I mean those three links,  would you agree what Trump said was 'true'?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Look I'm sorry to tell you but you can look at it yourself. I'm not saying it happens every time but it happens. I'll give you an example. In the Trump thread the current claim is that Obama had 'cages" in 2014 (or 2015) and Snopes is cited to for that proposition. Snopes says Trump's claim that Obama was putting children in cages like he has is 'True'. Do you agree with that? I looked. Snopes has a link to Jeh Johnson's speech at Aspen, it has a McAllen TX area news report from the time and it has a Phoenix news report at the time. The impression it leaves is that Trump's policies have been in effect since 2014. Now looking at that, I mean those three links,  would you agree what Trump said was 'true'?
Click to expand...
Snopes says the claim is true, what more do you want?

And seriously who would conclude Trump's policies have been in effect since 2014? You are parsing words as you have done in the past with a Snopes link.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/

The Obama administration, not the Trump administration, built the cages that hold many immigrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rating

True

[...]

But then Trump stated, “Obama built the cages. I didn’t build them. Obama built them.”

That portion of Trump’s commentary is true. Images of children behind chain-link fencing were widely seen at a site in McAllen, Texas, that had been converted from a warehouse to an immigrant-detention facility in 2014. Social media users who defended Trump’s immigration policies also shared a 2014 image of Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson touring a facility in Nogales, Arizona, in 2014, in which the fencing could be seen surrounding migrants there, too. That image was taken during a spike in the number of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central American countries.

Johnson addressed the issue during a June 2019 interview with the non-partisan think tank The Aspen Institute.

Very clearly, chain link, barriers, partitions, fences, cages, whatever you want to call them, were not invented on January 20, 2017, OK. And what’s interesting is Tom Homan made that statement — and under normal circumstances to fact check that, I would have called Tom Homan, who was the director of ICE ERO [Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations] while I was secretary, and say, ‘Hey Tom, did you guys use these things for ICE facilities?
Click to expand...
 [...]

 
squistion said:
You have made this claim numerous times before about Snopes, but it is not true. Their conclusions are accurate based on what they report, but you don't accept it and come up with some dubious link or odd interpretation of their sources to discredit it. They have made mistakes in past but have immediately corrected the record when they were made aware of any errors.  
Click to expand...
Some of snopes “fact checkers” are dubious at best 

 
squistion said:
Johnson addressed the issue during a June 2019 interview with the non-partisan think tank The Aspen Institute.

Quote
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly, watch it. - It's linked in the Snopes story. 

And in fact look at the Snopes embedded video, it's very different from the text. 

The difference is: Trump said (full quote) "Obama separated" and Trump claimed his administration brought them together. -  Johnson makes clear that 1. the segregating of the children was temporary by policy, and 2. they were unaccompanied minors. The Snopes video even makes this Trump claim clearly false even as the main body of the report that is highlighted as "true".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
Calling it mislabeled is disingenuous. It's a real photo but the context is 100% false. Just call it false. 

Here is snopes explanation of mislabled.

Miscaptioned

This rating is used with photographs and videos that are “real” (i.e., not the product, partially or wholly, of digital manipulation) but are nonetheless misleading because they are accompanied by explanatory material that falsely describes their origin, context, and/or meaning.

Aka false.  Facebook uses snopes to verify stories. Anything False is not shown on Facebook.  Misleading content is still distributed.  This gives Snopes the room to position stories as they choose. 
Click to expand...
So you think that people will check that story on snopes and still think the photo/story is true?

 
timschochet said:
How often do you get Snopes news? 
Click to expand...
Often enough to fact check the lies from the right, conservatives and Trump supporters.

Moot point in that if I am fact checking someone with Snopes in another thread I will post it there instead of some generic Snopes thread that no one will care to look at.

 
squistion said:
Often enough to fact check the lies from the right, conservatives and Trump supporters.

Moot point in that if I am fact checking someone with Snopes in another thread I will post it there instead of some generic Snopes thread that no one will care to look at.
Click to expand...
Good Lord....you can’t make this stuff up.  :lmao:

 
HellToupee said:
Post it in the ***Official Snopes Thread*** if you want to get eyes on it
Click to expand...
But what if you change title back again to "The Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick 50th Anniversary Thread" or "The Icky Woods Subway Sandwich Thread" like you did when a Mitt Romney thread you started went south and people said bad things about your idol?

If I post it there and you change the title again to something completely unrelated no one will ever be able to find it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee said:
Link? Never happened 
Click to expand...
Shame on you.

You want a link? OK.

Here is the link for the thread that you started about Mitt Romney that you later changed the title and the OP to being about an Icky Woods Commercial, to keep people from finding the original thread discussion about Mitt that you disapproved of.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/717800-icky-woods-commercial/

The thread started as a Mitt Romney thread and here are some early comments to prove it was about Romney and not the Woods Commercial

I can't think of too many political scenarios worse than the GOP taking control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency so please Mitt, from the bottom of my heart - RUN AGAIN!!!! America does need you.... to keep a Democrat in the White House.
Click to expand...
I don't know man... Mormons don't usually lie
Click to expand...
Here is one from Tim, do you expect us to believe he was talking about Icky Woods?

Even I wouldn't vote for him this time.
Click to expand...
And this is one of your posts, are you talking about Subway Sandwich Commercials or Romney?
 

Thank Willie . Yes I saw that but I believe patriotism will win out.

The Romney's love of the country will be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
Joe Bryant
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Future Of The Forum - And Big Thought On The Specific Problem
5 6 7
Replies
311
Views
20K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Zegras11
*** Official Fake News Thread **** Who's to Blame?
2
Replies
98
Views
3K
ren hoek
ren hoek

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top