Snopes

>>136161361
Look up the story about Hilary Clinton defending a child rapist.
>she had to do it, it was her job so it's a fake story
It's longer than that, but that's what it says. If you'll believe a source like that, you'll believe NASA has children sex camps on mars.

>>136161773
I'm not asking for a particular instance of Snopes getting it wrong, I'm asking for proof of systemic unreliability.

>>136161361
Morgellons Disease.

>>136162272
Then fucking read it and determine the bias for yourself. Why do you care what pol thinks. If you are a moron you will nod your head like a useful idiot, or you will think critically and see through their bullshit. Why are we supposed to do this shit for you?

>>136161361

if you need to ask, you're never gonna wake up

File: Angelina Jolie.jpg (68KB, 857x760px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 857x760px

>>136163651
>I can't prove that Snopes isn't a reliable source and I'm angry about it.

>>136161361

You're implying that Snopes is reliable. The burden of proof is on you, nigger. Prove that it is a reliable source.

>>136164048
My ethics professor allowed me to use Snopes as a source for my end of the semester term paper. I asked my professor if Snopes was reliable and she said "definitely".

>>136161361
Burden of proof is on you my man, kys

>>136164622
Well, if your professor said it then it must be true.

>>136164687
No isn't. You idiots are always claiming that Snopes isn't a reliable source.

Back up this claim with evidence.

>>136161361
Your thread. Prove to us that Snopes IS a reliable source.

>>136164622
Nah nigga you need more than an appeal to authority to prove that it's reliable

File: 1501818205803.png (554KB, 719x1588px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 719x1588px

>>136161361
Chuck Shumer and the Dems trying to steal Trump's platform.

They've copied his platform verbatim in an attempt to dupe people who voted for him in to voting for Democrats instead. It's shameless plagiarism and the fact that they are doing it instead of just wholesale pushing Russia shows how terrified the Democrats are. They have no message, no ideas of their own. Labeling their opponents as bigoted racists or the new label of Russian colluder is not working. They need an actual plan for America now, but they do not have one.

This needs to be pointed out to normies and likely Trump voters even that the Democrats are trying to pull a fast one on them. If they didn't believe in these positions before Trump, they certainly don't believe in them after. They're attempting a bait and switch.

>>136164622
nice bait
>go to snopes
>check out that trump
>trump is a baddy bad
>fact checker bio: 'I luv Obama XD'

Mostly False

>>>(((snopes)))

>>136164969
Multiple particular instances of them getting it wrong without redaction is why they're unreliable you mook.

>>136165031
>>136165089

You're the ones who are constantly claiming it isn't reliable. Prove it isn't.

>>136164622
>she
>ethics professor

>>136165244
If they didn't redact it, they didn't get it wrong.

You did.

>>136165259
I never made those claims and I feel no need to defend the position you imagine I have. You claimed it was reliable then used a logical fallacy to prove your belief. I'm just pointing out that's dumb

>>136161361
They don't have to say outright falsehoods to be unreliable. The issue is that they are biased just like politifact. They investigate more claims that support their bias and less that don't.

>>136164969
You just doubled your burden of proof. Kys, twice

>>136165457
>You claimed it was reliable

No I didn't.

>>136165440
How is it physically possible for someone to be this retarded.

>>136165685
Ad hominem. I just won this argument.

>>136165613
Ok when someone asked you to show it isn't reliable, you said your professor claimed it was. The implication is you think it's reliable. Do you believe it's reliable?

>>136165440
I'm going to make a post on how the holocaust didn't happen and if don't take it down then I'm right

>>136163873
No, he's angry that you don't have the common brain function like others here to reach your own opinion. We don't give a singular fuck if you think Snopes is good or not, it's your bias. So why are you asking us instead of being a critical thinker?

News isn't considered reliable. Polls are considered reliable. Wikipedia isn't considered reliable. Studies paid for by big corporations aren't considered reliable. Why would a blog written by a fat jewish couple be considered reliable?

>>136166004
>polls are
aren't* fml senpai

>>136166086
It's okay senpai I do the same all the thyme

>>136165859
>doesn't know what an ad-hominem is
>babby's first debate
Sad!

Mikkelson's wife, cat and ad vendor can confirm: not reliable.

>>136161361
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/

>inb4 archive nigga

The problem is they aren't outright telling lies, they're telling half truths and leaving out details about themselves and the stories they "check".

>>136161361
>1 post by this id

Shill thread keep moving

>>136166260
Profit denial
https://archive.is/sJeBU

>>136166276
There's 9 posts by this guy tho

>>136166291
My nigga, thanks dude. I'm an actual regard and have no idea how to archive.

>>136166388
*retard

Do you see

>>136165180
chuck schumer is going to be deported to israel and will die in its glassing

>>136166388
go to archive.is then paste link to the article then click archive

>>136161361
look up their debunking of the clinton 9/11 collapse being a medical problem

>that doctor is a republican so he's biased

They don't do any work themselves, they just select articles on the internet and choose what parts to debunk

>>136164622
>citing tertiary sources
Kind of surprised they teach ethics in middle school these days.

File: Cracky.jpg (41KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x480px

>>136161361
I gave up on Snopes years ago, I used it once or twice for checking on some news stories, tame stuff that wouldn't ruffle any feathers of any of the two major US political parties.Seemed OK. Now, as I'm a Britbong, I don't know as much as I could about US politics but I like to check sources... anyeway, I went to check on stories regarding Barack Hussain Obama's birth certificate.
Any attempt to "debunk" controversial news SHOULD discuss any claims made, and how such claims grew to be accepted, before demolishing them.
It's easy.
You hear the opposition out fully, you see what information they have, then answer them back with your own perspective. Snopes failed to "debunk" the claims regarding Obama's origins and his birth certificate, which was being examined from many possible angles.
Snopes dismissed all with a wave of the hand, and fell back on the tried and trusted "the claims were made by ebil raycists, so it ain't true, nigga" defense. No real examination was made of several points where Obama's "cover story" was weak.
From that day on I vowed never to use Snopes.

>>136161361
>Snopes
https://archive.is/QjzUr

>>136163873
They basically make strawman arguments and refute them. At this one, they say they have no evidence that NGO's are making profits from smuggling immigrants into Europe. For one NGO's don't claim money for items like that. If George Soros donates money to NGO's they don't file what that money was for, they just file that they received it. The truth is that NGO boats have tracking responders on their boats and we know for a fact that human smugglers take immigrants 10 miles off the Libyan coast and hand them off to NGO's. So Snopes is misrepresenting facts for political reasons.

https://archive.is/EKqV3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpbiq0uYo7U&ab_channel=DPPatriot

>>136161361
What's a reliable source?