Unprecedented backtracking or normal pandering?

[Jack V Savage]

As if you have researched all individual claims.

OK, buddy. Everyone who doesn't blindly swallow GOP propaganda is an evil monster. Carry on.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

As if you have researched all individual claims.



Sorry but just saying the word 'journalism' isn't a good reason for me to trust Politifact

well...............thats not what i did. but im tired of this already.

you win

 

[Peteyandjia]

OK, buddy. Everyone who doesn't blindly swallow GOP propaganda is an evil monster. Carry on.

Hey cool, something I never said. Having a fun conversation with yourself are ya?

 

[Peteyandjia]

well...............thats not what i did. but im tired of this already.

you win

No u

 

[Blackened]

right wing people will scoff at this, i get it. but ive never seen anyone do more than that with politifact. they lay out exactly why each claim gets the rating they give it. ive not seen anyone actually attempt to break it down. it just looks more like "i dont agree with it so its biased" shit to me.

and juding from the OP, politifact is looking more and more and more and more legit

"Source: Politifact"

Come on dude, at least try to use a credible source. Not one that uses "pants on fire".

Do you think Pew uses "pants on fire"? No, as they are credible.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Source: Politifact"

Come on dude, at least try to use a credible source. Not one that uses "pants on fire".

Do you think Pew uses "pants on fire"? No, as they are credible.

Is there any particular judgments that you disagree with? If you look at the items, it's mostly uncontroversial stuff. I think you're doing yourself a disservice to just dismiss it sight-unseen because the conclusions don't accord with what you've been led to believe.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

"Source: Politifact"

Come on dude, at least try to use a credible source. Not one that uses "pants on fire".

Do you think Pew uses "pants on fire"? No, as they are credible.

ive already addressed the obligatory scoffing at politifact. unless you have some specific criticism of them, i dont care.

 

[Peteyandjia]

"Source: Politifact"

Come on dude, at least try to use a credible source. Not one that uses "pants on fire".

Do you think Pew uses "pants on fire"? No, as they are credible.

You fucked up bro.

You just dared question Politifact.

Don't you see that they have charts & shit? Pictures, graphs etc.?

You can't fuck with that kinda journalism.

Fuck outta here

 

[AnytimeAnywhereAldo]

you know nothing about me, you just think you do. the irony of such an emo post and calling someone else a wimp...

no comments on the op?

You have a Crocop AV, a man who's infamous for getting brutally beaten by big black men (Randleman, Overeem, Kongo, Hoost (3x), Bojansky, MacDonald)

It's no surprise that you are a cuck, just like your hero

 

[Blackened]

You fucked up bro.

You just dared question Politifact.

Don't you see that they have charts & shit? Pictures, graphs etc.?

You can't fuck with that kinda journalism.

Fuck outta here

I mean, a particular criticism could be drawn from how they quantify truth. For example, I question the rigor of "pants on fire". Wasn't expecting to get ambushed for pointing out something so obvious.

I mean, "mostly true" is still bad quantification.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I mean, a particular criticism could be started with how they quantify truth. For example, I question the rigor of "pants on fire". Wasn't expecting to get ambushed for pointing out something so obvious.

youre just being silly and using their nomenclature to produce a weak ass argument.

unless you can point to a flaw in their methodology, no one cares. shit....the fact that they have methodology at all already puts them ahead of 90% of all liberal and conservative sources. yes im serious.

everyone else just makes claims and lays out plausible evidence and people believe what they want to believe.

 

[Blackened]

youre just being silly and using their nomenclature to produce a weak ass argument.

unless you can point to a flaw in their methodology, no one cares. shit....the fact that they have methodology at all already puts them ahead of 90% of all liberal and conservative sources. yes im serious.

I did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification_(science)

 

[Jack V Savage]

You fucked up bro.

You just dared question Politifact.

Don't you see that they have charts & shit? Pictures, graphs etc.?

You can't fuck with that kinda journalism.

Fuck outta here

Do you think that people are arguing that they'd rather see specific criticisms of specific claims instead of a just "they don't agree with GOP propaganda so they must be wrong" dismissal or that PF cannot be questioned at all?

 

[Peteyandjia]

I mean, a particular criticism could be started with how they quantify truth. For example, I question the rigor of "pants on fire". Wasn't expecting to get ambushed for pointing out something so obvious.

Well, here's one drop in the bucket example:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

 

[Blackened]

Is there any particular judgments that you disagree with? If you look at the items, it's mostly uncontroversial stuff. I think you're doing yourself a disservice to just dismiss it sight-unseen because the conclusions don't accord with what you've been led to believe.

Well, here's one drop in the bucket example:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

youre just being silly and using their nomenclature to produce a weak ass argument.

unless you can point to a flaw in their methodology, no one cares. shit....the fact that they have methodology at all already puts them ahead of 90% of all liberal and conservative sources. yes im serious.

everyone else just makes claims and lays out plausible evidence and people believe what they want to believe.

Here is another one. Rather than admit their mistakes, they try to cover their asses. Politimostlynonfactual

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...n-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#31f1c4a9316a

 

[Peteyandjia]

Do you think that people are arguing that they'd rather see specific criticisms of specific claims instead of a just "they don't agree with GOP propaganda so they must be wrong" dismissal or that PF cannot be questioned at all?

I think it's a bad idea to round up 'people' as one group and project why you think they might do what they do.

Speaking for myself, I don't trust Politifact because there seems to be a lot of bias & a lack of accuracy in the process of people deciding what is 'mostly true' 'mostly false' 'pants on fire' etc., and simply rubber-stamping that as if it's fact, multiply that by however many people & biases are involved, and then adding up the numbers and holding that up as gospel seems completely unscientific & unreliable to me. An aggregate that is at best lazy & dumbed down, and at worst, purposely manipulated.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here is another one. Rather than admit their mistakes, they try to cover their asses. Politimostlynonfactual

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...n-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#31f1c4a9316a

None of this is really relevant to Petey's claim. If he's saying that Bernie should have gotten a negative rating on the black unemployment thing, there's a case, though his comment was more specific than Trump's. How that relates to Clinton is unexplained so far.

 

[Blackened]

I think it's a bad idea to round up 'people' as one group and project why you think they might do what they do.

Speaking for myself, I don't trust Politifact because there seems to be a lot of bias & a lack of accuracy in the process of people deciding what is 'mostly true' 'mostly false' 'pants on fire' etc., and simply rubber-stamping that as if it's fact, multiply that by however many people & biases are involved, and then adding up the numbers and holding that up as gospel seems completely unscientific & unreliable to me. An aggregate that is at best lazy & dumbed down, and at worst, purposely manipulated.

Yeah, I don't mind liberal or conservative sites, but if I'm going to a site for impartiality to determine whether or not something is true... well, I'd rather them be impartial.

This is why Politifact is: Mostly Biased.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Here is another one. Rather than admit their mistakes, they try to cover their asses. Politimostlynonfactual

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...n-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#31f1c4a9316a

Yikes.

Yeah, that's a glaring example of what I'm talking about. An idea like Politifact just has so many holes in it to begin with, it was never going to work. Even if they did try to be honest. You can't have a bunch of people deciding for you what is 'true' or 'false' with a bunch of shades in between, on some kind of sliding scale, that is bound to spill bullshit all over the place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think it's a bad idea to round up 'people' as one group and project why you think they might do what they do.

Did a single person say anything like what you said? I know a couple of people wanted a more-specific criticism.

Speaking for myself, I don't trust Politifact because there seems to be a lot of bias & a lack of accuracy in the process of people deciding what is 'mostly true' 'mostly false' 'pants on fire' etc., and simply rubber-stamping that as if it's fact, multiply that by however many people & biases are involved, and then adding up the numbers and holding that up as gospel seems completely unscientific & unreliable to me. An aggregate that is at best lazy & dumbed down, and at worst, purposely manipulated.

Well, "purposely manipulated" sounds highly implausible, but sure, the point is to take complex reality and simplify it into something easily digestible. If the claim is that that should be the beginning, rather than the end of the discussion, I agree. It's a rough guide, though they provide the resources to check the stuff out for yourself. But to just blindly dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion is not cricket.