• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Socialist Nominated In NY - And Other States!

Gitson Shiggles

There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
Premium Member
Here is PolitiFact’s editor regarding Twitter’s inaction on Alex Jones:

“They’re not doing anything, and I’m frustrated that they don’t enforce their own policies,” said Angie Holan, editor of (Poynter-owned) PolitiFact. “And their attitude seems to be that they’re just doing nothing compared to what Facebook and Google are doing to combat fabricated news and hoaxes.”

https://www.poynter.org/news/whats-matter-twitter

It seems Ms. Holan is in favor of censoring speech in the name of “facts”, but who has the authority to determine what’s “factual”?
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Here is PolitiFact’s editor regarding Twitter’s inaction on Alex Jones:

“They’re not doing anything, and I’m frustrated that they don’t enforce their own policies,” said Angie Holan, editor of (Poynter-owned) PolitiFact. “And their attitude seems to be that they’re just doing nothing compared to what Facebook and Google are doing to combat fabricated news and hoaxes.”

https://www.poynter.org/news/whats-matter-twitter

It seems Ms. Holan is in favor of censoring speech in the name of “facts”, but who has the authority to determine what’s “factual”?
Is anyone here questioning the fact (!) that Jones's conspiracy theories are demonstrable lies?
 

Gitson Shiggles

There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
Premium Member
Excerpt from an interview of Bill Adair, founder of PolitiFact
*words in bold are of the interviewer and are of no emphasis:

The thing I always laugh at is that, on Facebook or Twitter, somebody will say “Can someone recommend a good conservative fact-checker?”

But there is some subjectivity baked into the process, in terms of which claims you check, and where you draw the line between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Objective journalists are still making subjective choices.

Oh, absolutely. But they always have!

I think that transparency is key. You need to have your own guidelines on how you select what you fact-check.

But yeah, we’re human. We’re making subjective decisions. Lord knows the decision about a Truth-O-Meter rating is entirely subjective. As Angie Holan, the editor of PolitiFact, often says, the Truth-O-Meter is not a scientific instrument.


https://psmag.com/news/an-interview-with-the-founder-of-politifact-during-a-season-of-distorted-reality#.kwgcczi3d
 

Gitson Shiggles

There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
Premium Member
Audio from an interview of Angie Holan, lending more credence that their “fact-checking” is subjective and not immune to bias. The telling part starts at about 6:00 and lasts a little over a minute. https://soundcloud.com/decodedc%2Fepisode-66-who-told-the-biggest-political-whopper-in-2014
“We have definitions for all of our ratings. The definition for "False" is the statement is not accurate. The definition for "Pants on Fire" is the statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. So, we have a vote by the editors and the line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other. And we totally understand when readers might disagree and say "You rated that 'Pants on Fire.' It should only be 'False.'" Or "You rated that 'False." Why isn't it 'Pants on Fire'?" Those are the kinds of discussions we have every day.”
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Audio from an interview of Angie Holan, lending more credence that their “fact-checking” is subjective and not immune to bias. The telling part starts at about 6:00 and lasts a little over a minute. https://soundcloud.com/decodedc%2Fepisode-66-who-told-the-biggest-political-whopper-in-2014
“We have definitions for all of our ratings. The definition for "False" is the statement is not accurate. The definition for "Pants on Fire" is the statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. So, we have a vote by the editors and the line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other. And we totally understand when readers might disagree and say "You rated that 'Pants on Fire.' It should only be 'False.'" Or "You rated that 'False." Why isn't it 'Pants on Fire'?" Those are the kinds of discussions we have every day.”
I have to admit, that delineation is upsetting. While I disagreed with the "pants on fire" for Shapiro's comment on Muslim extremism, I did not believe that they would make it so blatantly subjective
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Except you didn’t comment at all on the content I posted in the other thread about Nazism.
yes I did
That has got to be one of the stupidest articles I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Fascism is a term invented by the Italian socialist party leader Benito "I am not ready for war Hitler please give me a year" Mussolini to describe his vision for Italy: a bundle of sticks that would hold on together better than separately (facis means bundle of sticks). How the hell the author links racism and conservatism is beyond me. Conservatism in America is about the INDIVIDUAL AND DISREGARDS RACE. The right is all about equal rights for everyone (unlike the Dems who VICIOUSLY opposed the 14 15 & 16 amendments). Overall, a dumb article.
And oh my God. Whenever we point out socialism, the left scrambles and says "ThAtS nOt ReAl SoCiAlIsM"
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
On what planet are Rachel Maddow and Ben Shapiro the yin and yang of left and right??

I wonder if people ever take time to watch/listen/read firsthand.. instead of from a 3rd party source.
They are both prominent commentators on their respective "sides". I don't think anyone would (or can) disagree with that.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
They are both prominent commentators on their respective "sides". I don't think anyone would (or can) disagree with that.
my issue with the comparison is that Shapiro actually provides data and specifics (sometimes at nauseam), where Maddow provides a great deal of histrionics and that silly tax drama ;)
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
They are both prominent commentators on their respective "sides". I don't think anyone would (or can) disagree with that.
What? Lol

I suggest watching Ben Shapiro sometime.
How? What point did I deflect exactly? Restate the point and, if I somehow missed it earlier, I will address it now.
You used Rachel Maddow as the opposite to Ben Shapiro.. if we’re talking facts and conspiracy theories, yeah they couldn’t be more different. If we’re saying that Maddow is the Left’s version of Shapiro.. then refer to my above recommendation.

For the record, I have watched her, i do watch her show sometimes, I don’t rely on 3rd party sources to tell me about her.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
my issue with the comparison is that Shapiro actually provides data and specifics (sometimes at nauseam), where Maddow provides a great deal of histrionics and that silly tax drama ;)
The comparison was about the credibility of each commentator in the eyes of those on the other side of the political spectrum. Shapiro isn't liked on the left, Maddow isn't liked on the right. Posting clips of either to convince your political opponents isn't a wise strategy.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
What? Lol

I suggest watching Ben Shapiro sometime.


You used Rachel Maddow as the opposite to Ben Shapiro.. if we’re talking facts and conspiracy theories, yeah they couldn’t be more different. If we’re saying that Maddow is the Left’s version of Shapiro.. then refer to my above recommendation.

For the record, I have watched her, i do watch her show sometimes, I don’t rely on 3rd party sources to tell me about her.
I have watched him. As I said earlier in the thread. That's when I concluded he's garbage.

And I've watch Maddow.

You're making things up again. I never said I know about them from third-party sources.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
I have watched him. As I said earlier in the thread. That's when I concluded he's garbage.

And I've watch Maddow.

You're making things up again. I never said I know about them from third-party sources.
I think I get it now, if you disagree with someone they’re “not credible”, what they say is “garbage”. That’s not how it works.. at least it shouldn’t work that way.

It’s entirely possible to respond to facts with something a little more credible than “garbage”. Facts matter little these days though., to some. I think we realize that.

You were mislead by a Politifact article.. and used that as your example as why he isn’t “credible.”
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
The politifact thing was quite disappointing. Specifically, to subjectively state...its a thin line between "not true" and "pants on fire". They just look foolish
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
The politifact thing was quite disappointing. Specifically, to subjectively state...its a thin line between "not true" and "pants on fire". They just look foolish
The politifact thing was quite disappointing. Specifically, to subjectively state...its a thin line between "not true" and "pants on fire". They just look foolish
The politifact thing was quite disappointing. Specifically, to subjectively state...its a thin line between "not true" and "pants on fire". They just look foolish
The politifact thing was quite disappointing. Specifically, to subjectively state...its a thin line between "not true" and "pants on fire". They just look foolish
Using politifact as a way to make your case in an argument is the same as saying I can't refute your argument so I will show my superiority by using politifact to bail me out. Only liberals use that crutch.
 
Top Bottom