Snopes

File: IMG_3808.jpg (16KB, 287x176px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 287x176px

>>140399227

>>140399227
they were bought out.

reality has a known centrist-bias, and /pol/ is located on the "Right Pole", so all other directions are left

File: 1503243537734.png (351KB, 720x509px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 720x509px

>>140399667
You're on the spectrum, aren't you?

>>140399227
>What's wrong with Snopes
They are NPR's endorsed source of truth.

>>140400299
no argument detected

>>140399227

/pol/ is world of conspiracy bounded only by one's imagination - kind of what Snopes is trying to debunk.

>>140399227

It's buzzfeed, if buzzfeed pretended to be wikipedia.

>>140399667
Kill yourself

>>140401201
imagine if I was wrong
then maybe you'd be able to explain why

>>140399227

/pol lives in a fantasy land and anything that resembles the truth and has real facts they are just too fucking stupid to understand

>>140399227
Look up who works there. Look up what they say about some obviously true things. They're also very, very inept when it comes to politics. Most of politics is conjecture, not fact. Even statistics, if you've ever taken a statistics class, are used to massively misrepresent data.

It's complete garbage, also cat lady super liberal.

File: 1504284149535m.jpg (73KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x768px

>>140401791
t. weisberg

Hmm.. globalist funded fact checker, nothing wrong there

File: 1498089749153m.jpg (49KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x576px

>>140401791

manipulate data to suit their narrative. been wrong themselves many times. must suck to be cucked by snopes.

Anything incriminating the left is "false", anything incriminating the right is "true", and anything false that incriminates the right is "probably true"

>>140399227
it's literally a fat cat woman and her cuck husband.

>>140399227
Snopes factchecks not a statement, but what a statement implies which is inherently subjective. Hence, Snopes can take something that is 100% true and then call it "Mostly False" for being "misleading".

it used to be a good, simple little website that would do amateur research into urban myths, and either refute them or finds bits of truth to them. then a bit ago it turned into full on CTR shill, then just a general leftist shill site. before, it had nothing to do with politics, and the website looked completely different. it was supposedly run by a guy and his wife. now it's literal paid shills.

>>140399227
>>140402020

(((((SNOPES))))) is literally run by a LEFTIST JEW that blew the money the dumb goyim donated to him on hookers, then had the chutzpah to ask for more donations later. And it worked, the retarded cattle obliged.

>>140399227

Snopes is consistently right wing in its assumptions so I don't know why /pol wouldn't like it.

>>140399227

Because they say that retarded conspiracy theories aren't true.

>>140402290
I couldn't find any Snopes articles on Snopes having a left leaning agenda so I'm going to have to label this as fake news :/

Burden of proof is on you, sweetie... I'd suggest that you buy a brain first since clearly you born without one.

>>140399227
/pol/ hates it when their alternative facts get debunked

>>140399667
>reality has a known centrist-bias
Golden mean fallacy

File: 1504365607503.jpg (12KB, 250x223px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x223px

>>140399667
Horse shit you fucking swecuck. Reality is reality, you have a "centerist bias".

Look at how they "debunked" CNN's fake rescue in Houston.

>>140399227
Snopes is a liberal-run organization which promotes liberal lies. Fake information.

>>140399227
(((snopes)))

>>140399227
Their contributors are known to mischaracterize popular right-wing views to discredit them.

They interviewed Moldylocks to get her account of the events at Berkeley:
http://www.snopes.com/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

What's irritating here is that the Snopes article concludes the photo isn't doctored, but debunks the claim that it was full of explosives. I haven't heard anybody claim it was full of anything -- just that she was using it (and other empty bottles) as a weapon. So they cheerfully exonerate her from the thing no-one claims she did.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idiot that wrote the blog post they're sourcing the claim was just a matter of the sort of Chinese whispers bullshit that comes from things like that stupid dishonest article there was a slapfight about earlier on in the thread, where someone not caring about firecrackers turns into advocating throwing explosives which turns into "she made bomb threats" or "she was throwing IEDs".

Normally I'd say that they should be commended for going through the effort to debunk absurd claims, but given that the source of the claims is A guy with <150 likes on facebook it looks more like they went the extra mile to find a claim that was so absurd and on the fringe of what people could have possibly be aware of that I think it's right to accuse them of trying to play up the claims so that the writer could label what is being said about her as "mostly false".

>>140399227
lol! so you trust a website to check facts for you because you're too lazy to google something for 10 minutes?! Okay. Looks good to me.

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

Ohh, fucking pol! SEE, IT"S ALL FALSE!

>>140403308
There isn't much proof out there, only speculation.

Besides, reality ~does~ have a liberal bias!

*sips tea*

>>140399227
It is run by a pair of liberals whose research consists of hitting I Feel Lucky on google. They ignore evidence to the contrary and frequently use strawmen arguments to debunk claims, for example they find a photoshop of young Soros in an SS uniform, point out that he wasn't old enough and boom, the whole Soros worked for the Nazis argument is "debunked"

>>140402886
>Implying it even happened

>>140403308
Pizzagate is the prime example: they prove that the people were not literally fucking and killing kids on the ping pong tables in the shop and Alefantis said they did not even have a basement, therefore the whole argument is debunked.

>>140403442
Chokes on tea bag. Tells bf to get up.

>>140404213
Oh sweetie, you completely ignored the heart of my post! Silly you :/

*sips tea*

>>140399227

/pol is allergic to facts. Anything they dont like is "fake news"

>>140399227
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f

>>140405053
What if we archive it
https://unvis.it/forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#5e37d069227f

>>140404806
>/pol is allergic to facts. Anything they dont like is "fake news"
which is, of course, fake news. Do you work for Snopes?

>>140402916
fallacy fallacy

>>140402952
I'm not a centrist.
I'm far-right, and I don't really care about the hows and whys of society and mass psychology. Given enough force, the masses will yield.

Snopes refuses to be archived, so the Wayback Machine has nothing.

Page about Disney stealing the idea for "The Lion King" from Osamu Tezuka's "Jungle Emperor Leo" baleeted,

Funny how they have full cooperation from Disney now.

>>140401935
>cat lady super liberal
It's the collision between hookers-and-blow guy and the cat lady. Fuck Snopes and fuck anyone that believes their garbage, especially about politics.

File: 1504563638523.gif (2MB, 237x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 237x240px

>>140404806
you have to go back
>/pol
why do you losers come here and bitch? go back.

>>140403442
>>140404619
1. Only sentient things can have a bias of any kind.
2. Reality is not a sentient thing.
3. Therefore reality cannot have a bias of any kind.
4. A liberal bias is a kind of bias.
5. Therefore reality cannot have a liberal bias.
6. What cannot happen does not happen.
7. Therefore reality does not have a liberal bias... sweetie :^)
>>140405354
Oh geez, citing a fallacy isn't a fallacy fallacy, you fucking braindead spastic. A fallacy fallacy is calling a conclusion false because the reasoning is fallacious. The purpose of citing your unsound reasoning is to show that there is no reason to accept your conclusion. It can still be correct by accident, but not by anything you said.

Are you really so stupid that you thought fallacies can be excused by citing "fallacy fallacy"? 4chan is 18+

>>140399227
/pol/ spreads and creates right leaning propaganda. Snopes debunks right leaning propaganda and mostly leaves left wing propaganda unexamined

Soros-funded.

>>140406367
I hate the word "debunked" because it implies what is actually true can be affected by our conclusions (it can't). Everything is an ongoing debate. Nothing is "debunked;" at least -- ideas are not "debunked."

>>140405471

No. fuck of you cucked cunt.

File: hill.png (22KB, 656x328px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 656x328px

snopes dump?

>>140406736

debunking is about removing the "bunk" from something. False claims certainly can be debunked. Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"- thats a Trumpian Logical Fallacy.

File: 22.png (299KB, 477x639px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 477x639px

>>140406083
Yep

>>140399227
Snopes has had absolutely no credibility since the election for reason that would be very obvious to you if you weren't a blatant shill.

File: chelsea.png (45KB, 656x539px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 656x539px

>>140407158

>>140399227
It's run by Jews who supported, donated, and campaigned for Hillary. What do you think is wrong with it?

>>140399227

I heard that Snopes debunked claims that Assad was using gas weapons - until he did use them (according to the MSM).

That's the problem with the website, the finality with which they declare things is inappropriate for ongoing situations. Often times I feel like they will debunk things way too early than is appropriate.

>>140405354
fallacy fallacy fallacy

>>140406736
>Setteled science
Is another good one too

>>140407512
fallacy((nfallacy^fallacy(fallacy/fallacy^3))
)

>>140407512
if nothing else is presented as an argument, nothing can be pointed out but the fallacy

fallacy fallacy fallacy only applies if the fallacy fallacy statement was made incorrectly based off a statement that combined a fallacy and an actual argument. my comment did not constitute a fallacy fallacy fallacy as the fallacy fallacy comment I made was regarding a comment merely pointing out a fallacy.

File: Screenshot_2017-09-05_18-19-09.png (426KB, 886x936px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 886x936px

>>140399227
>Run by an impartial Democrat
>Impartial Democrat staff
>Doesn't credit writers and researchers on its articles; no accountability, can't check for expertise or conflicts of interest
>Doesn't respond to fact checks
>Doesn't allow comments
>Numerous examples of bullshit and truth manipulation
>All this while claiming to be an authority on the objective truth

Take for example the article about Clinton freeing a child rapist. They re-frame it into a claim that Hillary Clinton "laughed about freeing a rapist" and judge it "Mostly False". Ignore the fact that she admitted on tape to knowingly getting a child rapist off the hook, and that they even provide this tape. It's "mostly false" because some random internet image exaggerated her response.

>>140402308
Many statements which require fact checking are coded in rhetoric. The meaning of this rhetoric has to be taken as an assumption or else evaluating it would be meaningless. This triggers the kids who try and obfuscate truth by use of rhetoric.

>>140407279
>Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"- thats a Trumpian Logical Fallacy.

There certainly can be an ongoing debate, in which case you have to distinguish between a "Good Guess" and a "100% True Fact."

Sometimes you do not know the truth and all you can do is present a good guess. However, you should not misrepresent your good guess as a 100% true fact.

It acts as an arbiter of what's true and false, when the data itself on the topics they cover is limited. It's more so what topics they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover and frame them. Where something leans is fairly subjective, but it's never wrong to question someone or something purporting to determine what is truth.

Big problem is when data is limited. They create and debunk very specific assertions. This frames the argument in a different light more akin to a more left-leaning, liberal mindset, even when there may be truth to original questions being asked had they been framed differently. Perfect example of this is the supposed "fact checking" during the presidential election. It's become more and more apparent over the past year, as everyone becomes polarized in their political views. The refusal to archive their information is also sketchy. Figures lie and liars figure.

>>140407279
>False claims certainly can be debunked. Facts should not be an "ongoing debate"
This is called appealing to the stone. Nothing can be known for certain, thus the ongoing debate. People who think they know are idiots. For all you know, you could be a brain in a vat. Do trees make a sound if they fall and no one is around to hear them? You don't know that they do. You may think it's unlikely, but that isn't a consequence of a quantified probability, therefore it is a consequence of cognitive bias. You can't even prove you exist -- why should I believe you if you say something's debunked? Why believe anyone -- based on their credentials? What degree must one get in order for their conclusion that they've debunked something to be 100% accurate and undeniably true? A doctorate? Your notion that things can be "debunked" is based on arbitrary assumptions.

>>140408151
>Nothing can be known for certain

really? what is 1+1?

fuck off with this larping BS.

It is known for certain that you are a dumbshit of the highest order. Any attempt to deny this or strawman your way out of it will be a logical fallacy and you should simply kys as quickly as possible.

>>140407337
Ok, so try reading it.

>>140399227
Snopes is just another in a long line of websites/institutions/persons who want intellectual authority so much they are willing to fabricate it

the only reason snopes is considered more reputable than wikipedia or any other website is because its owners are well-cnnected liberals. that's all

>>140405101

Thank you m8ee.

>>140406083
I'm gonna go ahead and say that reality is sentient and that we only exist as self aware extensions of the intention of all that IS. Your concepts of what can/cannot happen are bounded by simulated linear time and the physical world that you are allowed to perceive and make sense of by your 5 senses. The very things you believe cannot happen are actually happening right now, always have been happening, and always will happen whether or not the first person subjective YOU ever observes them.

>lrn2Tralfamadorian

I remember back in the day it was this goofy urban legends debunking site that looked like it was designed by and for gullible middle aged housewives on the net who get email chains about want to see if they're real. Wish I had a screen shot of the original site. It looks fucking ridiculous. Little clip art cartoons as bullet points, dumb "gotcha" jokes at the end of every myth they "debunk", you could tell it wasn't a serious site at all, more like a gossip circle of sorts.

I don't know when or why they got into politics.

>>140408541
>fuck off with this larping BS.

Why are you being so obtuse? This isn't hard to understand, here is an example:

Very early on, some fact checkers had thoroughly debunked the claim that Hillary Clinton has handed debate questions by that black woman in the DNC. Later on, it was learned that the black woman did indeed give Clinton the debate questions.

That's a problem you're going to run into if you claim to be a website that "debunks" things and your knee-jerk reaction biases get you in trouble.

>>140408541
Prove 1+1=2 without using tautology. All knowledge is based on axioms, which are assumptions we think are self-evident, like the apparent self-evidence that 1+1=2, which we know to be intersubjectively true, not objectively true. So go on, prove it. I can conceive of a possible world in which 1+1!=2, or even one in which numbers don't exist, so convince me those worlds don't exist and that 1+1=2 is necessarily true. You can't.

>>140399667
>centrist bias

Look kid let me just give you a quick run down on the real political spectrum.
>Most people see it as left vs right
>Absolute left is seen as Communism and absolute right is seen as Nazism
>People see both ideologies as evil and try to pick the middle ground as it comes off as rational.
>The reality is that the political spectrum is a multi-dimensional spectrum.
>The reality is that communism is still absolutle left but Nazism is actually center left.
>People who view them selves to be centrist on a 1-dimensional/horseshoe spectrum are actually leftists, and no right winged ideology is actually on that spectrum.

>>140399227
I'd Trust a anon on /b/ saying the sky was falling more.

>>140408854
>The very things you believe cannot happen are actually happening right now, always have been happening, and always will happen whether or not the first person subjective
I've been searching for a name for this fallacy because it's so apparently widespread, but I can't find one. It is something like "possibly true therefore true." Thoughts, anyone?

File: asshat.jpg (42KB, 312x385px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 312x385px

>>140409217

1+1=2

done. proven.

now BTFO you larping cunt. Semantics and pseudo-intellectual gymnastics will not save you from being an asshat.

>>140408854
>>140409662
I guess it could be a modal scope fallacy? because you're assumption that a possibly true thing is true implies it is necessarily true, but I'm not real satisfied with that.
>>140409858
kek
>Argumentum ad lapidem
>The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus."[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley's argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

>>140409216
>had thoroughly debunked the claim

apparently they hadnt.

>>140410186

argumentum ad ignorantiam

kek is for cucks...thus it is a fact that you are a cuck.

>>140410495
It would be an argument from ignorance only if I were actually arguing that 1+1!=2 by asking you to prove otherwise.
>shifting of burden of proof
Your turn.

>>140399227
Horrible redesign a few years back which rendered the site useless and the occasional reluctance to actually research an Urban Legend instead going with "one person said it was fake, so it's fake".

>>140410686

I have proven it- if you are too ignorant to understand that...thats on you. please dont burden us with your ignorance.

please continue to reply. I have all night.

>>140410969
>I have proven it
>proof by assertion

>>140409109
i remember the old design every section had a different look and i think audio would play i wish i could see it again

>>140411136

Havent read much Bertrand Russell have you. LOL

>>140411136
>>140410969
Hey so uh, this debate, uh, seems pretty *leans in to whisper in your ear* ongoing.

>>140411728
If you have any respect for him, you're retarded.
Russell's teapot:

>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

False analogy. We observe that we are the only civilzation in the solar system, that teapots don't launch themselves into space, and that there have been no manned missions to Mars -- we observe that it is unlikely such a teapot exists. We make no such observations about the existence of God.

Russel would have no authority to assert there is such a teapot. The bible does have authority. The bible is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years that are all theologically synchronous, with minimal, irrelevant "contradictions" that are expected of any such collection of historical documents and only add to its historicity. Its own words also give it authority, which reveal themselves as the word of God to anyone willing to read it as such.

https://pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3

>>140399227
it's written by a faggot and a cunt

>>140411780

no. there is no debate. only a foolish larper who tries too hard to be a contrarian. the debate is only in your head. Its the only way you will win.

so much shilling in this thread for (((snopes)))

(((they))) are here

File: 1495245211834.jpg (3MB, 7000x5893px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7000x5893px

>>140403308
https://youtu.be/aG1Jd3PF-JU

https://youtu.be/oBSvUlkB61s

>>140412180
The "debate" is objective reality which can't be known. Whether you refuse to listen is irrelevant.

>>140399227
they post facts that goes against my world view and even use citations

>>140399227
>a biased fact-checker
Gee, I wonder whats wrong with snopes.

>>140399227
There is nothing wrong with it, the right just really hates facts.

>>140412553

it can be known. I know it.

that you dont is your failure.

>>140412772
That you think you know anything is your failure.

>>140399227

Peddles fake news and leftist propaganda.

>>140412904
so... the truth.

>>140401094

>Conspiracy theory site Snopes is hated by the conspiracy minded

Interesting.

>>140412865

So you admit you are clueless. Thanks for clarifying.

>>140399227
>2 literal jews make a web site in the 199x era and everyone believes everything they say because theyve been saying it for decades

File: Politifact.jpg (358KB, 1600x1228px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1600x1228px

>>140399227
Snopes isn't as bad as others, because its mission statement isn't explicitly political, but it should still be taken with a grain of salt. Fact checkers are generally partisan garbage pretending not to be.
> fact-checkers have insisted that a factory in Haiti that the Clintons helped build was not a sweatshop, despite the fact that wages in Haitian factories are under a dollar per hour and workers have complained regularly of exploitative and abusive treatment
> Davis wrote an article about the small percentage of its funding the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable grants (as opposed to its own in-house programming), PunditFact argued that the claim, “while technically true” was nevertheless “mostly false.”
>when Carly Fiorina claimed that she had gone from being a secretary to being a CEO, her claim was given “Three Pinnochios” by The Washington Post, even though Fiorina had indeed (by the Post’s own admission) been a secretary before she was a CEO
>PolitiFact constantly spreads its statistics about how X percent of Trump or Clinton’s statements are rated false, declining to mention the fact that this statistic is empty of any content, since the statements that are evaluated haven’t been randomly selected.
>https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility

>>140401791

Nail on head. SNOPES "resembles" the truth while peddling propaganda.

It's almost as comical as Vox and Politifact.

Even when they were credible and not political hacks, it was still essentially "let me google that for you". They didn't get off their fat asses and actually investigate anything.

>>140412975

No. Snopes is a purveyor of propaganda. It's literally anti-truth.

File: 1474124615070.gif (1MB, 290x260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x260px

>>140412682
>Facts
>A cuck, his "wife" and their cat
K

>>140399227

Snopes, like NYT or WashPo, now requires corporate and government charity because they have destroyed their business model by trying to cash in by selling their reputations to political propagandists.

>>140413381
Btw, What's with libtards and George Takei? That dumbass held a grudge against William Shatner for not letting him be captain of his own starship. Shatner had to explain to him that the show is about their voyage and making him a captain of his own ship would mean writing him off the show short of guest appearances. He still didn't get it. But libtards hold Takei up as some kind of brainiac. He's butt fucking retarded.

>>140413034
You are making the claim that it is impossible that your knowledge is possibly false.
There are different perspectives and one reality, so what makes your perspective correct? Every bit of evidence you could possibly provide for the truth of your conclusion is based on your perspective, so using it to show your perspective is correct would be invalid circular reasoning. All you know is that 1+1=2 to everyone who encounters the problem, and it is thus intersubjectively true. If someone were to perceive 1+1 to not equal 2 but maybe something else, you would conclude, by -inductive- reasoning, that they are incorrect, which, while pragmatic, is a faulty induction -- as it always is to claim to have true knowledge based on inductive reasoning. Alternatively, what if a larger number of the population were to perceive 1+1 as equalling something else other than 2? like 5 or 5,000 or 1/3 of the world's population?
You would contest that's impossible just as you contest implicitly that it is impossible that your knowledge is possibly false. Why? If you can't provide a reason, then your belief that you know 1+1=2 is irrational.

>>140399227
They are pretty nice when dealing with internet scams and the like. However, during the election they took a very pro-Hillary stance, even when Bernie was still in the running. In one instance they say the claim of Hillary Clinton calling Bernie supporters "Basement Dwellers" was mostly false, and their excuse was that she merely said that those who like Bernie Sanders are living in their parent's basements. Don't believe that they'd do that? Here's the fucking link http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-basement-dwellers/

>>140414509

no. I am the making the claim that you are an asshat. That is objectively true.

prove me wrong.

>>140414659
Why is it impossible that you're wrong?

>>140414748

Because i am omniscient

>>140399227
Snopes "debunks" conspiracy theories a couple days after they even come into existence.
Pizzagate was debunked by Snopes without even a formal police investigation.
That, plus the guy who runs it is a wacko.

>>140414659
>es.com/hillary-clintons-basement-dwellers/ Anonymous (ID: 47AuNLIg) 09/05/17(Tue)17:14:26 No.140414659>>140414748>>140414509
>
>no. I am the making the claim that you are an asshat. That is objectively true.
>
>prove me wrong.

This is blatantly the Burden of Proof fallacy

>>140414963
>This is blatantly the Burden of Proof fallacy

this claim is only used when one cannot actually prove the claim false. its a cop out - congrats!

>>140415443
.You're a special type of autistic aren't you?

>>140415443
>its a cop out - congrats!
No it isn't.
Prove me wrong.

>>140399227
Snopes is a left wing propaganda website.

Their explanations are usually strawmen, or flat out lies.

>>140417475
No, snopes debunked this.

>>140417606
this deserves a (((you)))

>>140399227
One of the questions was are rioters funded by soros and if you some up the answer it says "they aren't because we told you so"

>>140408557
I did and got a B

>>140418763
So what was the conclusion you were taught? That fallacies are irrelevant because they can be countered with fallacy fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
I guess wikipedia really can be wrong.

File: 1504035687256.png (44KB, 706x674px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 706x674px

>>140417475
>IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH MY VIEWS SO IT HAS TO BE FALSE!!!

>>140399227
It's literally a paid leftist propaganda site

>>140419376
>will supress different oppinions
/pol/ confirmed mods on all boards

>>140399227
If you want to understand why snopes is bad , lookup pizzagate on it.
>pizzagate is fake because we believe it's fake
>it has also been discredited by many different people
>none of the people mentioned have any good arguments except for "it's far fetched"

>>140402402
/thread

>>140419376
An ad hominem is using insults as a premise, not concluding you're retarded.
---
appeal to hypocrisy
---
Refutation isn't "suppression."
---
red herring. The alleged dubiousness of our sources is irrelevant to your invalid or unsound "evidence."
---
What we are unable to accept is people propounding falsities as truths.
---
There is a difference between being "triggered" (an unreasonable emotional reaction) and hating stupidity and degeneracy

>>140408325
>You can't even prove you exist
Says the person asking for a fist to the teeth as evidence of existence

>>140421427
I don't deny existence...

>>140399667
you guys consider everyone right of hard communism to be "right of center"