Fact Check this

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The question Sub should ask is: why does Newsmax not have a fact checkers until it is threatened with a lawsuit?

HEY SUBGENIUS, WELL? XANAX?

Let’s take a look at this again:

https://mobile.Twitter.com/andrewfeinbe ... LoO3GS5xdI

Is THAT a damned FACT CHECK?

damned assholes almost got Trump to declare martial law and send us into civil war.

- Doc

[subgenius]

Cool story.
can you follow up with something relevant to the OP?

You asked, “Why is a fact checker even getting traction on a platform like Facebook?”

Your senility seems to be worsening. : D

you can't answer my question of "why traction" with "because traction".
that's senile...sorry, *purile.

[canpakes]

You asked, “Why is a fact checker even getting traction on a platform like Facebook?”

Your senility seems to be worsening. : D

you can't answer my question of "why traction" with "because traction".
that's senile...sorry, *purile.

I’ll help you out by dumbing it down:

“Because capitalism”.

If you had to ask the question in the first place, it makes sense that you don’t understand the answer.

[Dr Exiled]

I think tying a credit score or social score to websites visited that fact checkers don't like is where this is headed if we don't object. Itll lead to tyranny as disfavored views by power that attack power will be eliminated. It's going on in China and the IMF is suggesting this be implemented.

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-i ... n-fintech/

A better model is to allow individuals to have the freedom to do their own fact checking or to listen to whomever is doing the fact checking if they want. Better still is to provide evidence for claims and let the discussion proceed from there.

[Res Ipsa]

I think tying a credit score or social score to websites visited that fact checkers don't like is where this is headed if we don't object. Itll lead to tyranny as disfavored views by power that attack power will be eliminated. It's going on in China and the IMF is suggesting this be implemented.

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-i ... n-fintech/

A better model is to allow individuals to have the freedom to do their own fact checking or to listen to whomever is doing the fact checking if they want. Better still is to provide evidence for claims and let the discussion proceed from there.

But the evidence is that evidence doesn’t matter. People aren’t persuaded by evidence and discussion. That’s why we have 30-35% of Americans living in alternate factual reality. You’re talking as if verifying facts somehow represses opinions or points of view. How does fact checking do that?

[Gadianton]

I think tying a credit score or social score to websites visited that fact checkers don't like is where this is headed if we don't object. Itll lead to tyranny as disfavored views by power that attack power will be eliminated. It's going on in China and the IMF is suggesting this be implemented.

*shrug*. Today's far and even moderate right is taking us right into the open arms of tyranny anyway, and sooner rather than later, and so I'm all for giving it a shot. As we move in that direction, I'll be very open to 1) specific examples of where these policies stifle the ability of the public getting good information and 2) how these failures compare to the failures we've experienced with the free-market solution of letting people say virtually whatever they want.

A few years ago I started a job at a company that was much larger than the companies I'd worked for in the past. I was a little concerned about dress codes and other draconian big-company measures. A junior-tier IT guy was giving me a tour of my new work area, and as he was showing me the available printers, I asked if there were page limits for printing; mainly colored printing. He turned to me, and with all the confidence and righteousness of a junior-tier network administrator, he says says to me, "No. But don't make us have to make one."

[subgenius]

you can't answer my question of "why traction" with "because traction".
that's senile...sorry, *purile.

I’ll help you out by dumbing it down:

“Because capitalism”.

If you had to ask the question in the first place, it makes sense that you don’t understand the answer.

Ok, so the question, though clearly typed and repeated, eludes you. my bad.

[canpakes]

I’ll help you out by dumbing it down:

“Because capitalism”.

If you had to ask the question in the first place, it makes sense that you don’t understand the answer.

Ok, so the question, though clearly typed and repeated, eludes you. my bad.

Not my problem if you don’t know what you want to discuss. Proceed with playing dumb.

[Dr Exiled]

I think tying a credit score or social score to websites visited that fact checkers don't like is where this is headed if we don't object. Itll lead to tyranny as disfavored views by power that attack power will be eliminated. It's going on in China and the IMF is suggesting this be implemented.

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-i ... n-fintech/

A better model is to allow individuals to have the freedom to do their own fact checking or to listen to whomever is doing the fact checking if they want. Better still is to provide evidence for claims and let the discussion proceed from there.

But the evidence is that evidence doesn’t matter. People aren’t persuaded by evidence and discussion. That’s why we have 30-35% of Americans living in alternate factual reality. You’re talking as if verifying facts somehow represses opinions or points of view. How does fact checking do that?

I'm not opposed with fact checkers per se, only if the fact checkers are tied to monopolist media companies and there isn't alternative outlets for speech. There has to be an outlet for anyone to speak and spread their theories, etc. I don't think you can trust anyone to control speech as that is tyranny and sooner or later those in control will abuse it.

I know it was a close election and Trump almost won. But doesn't that say something about Biden? The Democrats should have put up a better candidate and he/she would have won in a landslide. However, they need to guard against the real left that wants to go against the wall street donor class and so we get the alzheimers patient, limping over the line.

Doing away with free speech because a minority may follow q anon nonsense is too extreme. Give people Medicare for all and end the wars and spend the money on everyone here at home. That'll cure any crazy conspiracy theory talk.

Incidentally, what does Biden stand for anyway? Biden won, now what? (as Ice Cube said before the election)

[Dr Exiled]

I think tying a credit score or social score to websites visited that fact checkers don't like is where this is headed if we don't object. Itll lead to tyranny as disfavored views by power that attack power will be eliminated. It's going on in China and the IMF is suggesting this be implemented.

*shrug*. Today's far and even moderate right is taking us right into the open arms of tyranny anyway, and sooner rather than later, and so I'm all for giving it a shot. As we move in that direction, I'll be very open to 1) specific examples of where these policies stifle the ability of the public getting good information and 2) how these failures compare to the failures we've experienced with the free-market solution of letting people say virtually whatever they want.

A few years ago I started a job at a company that was much larger than the companies I'd worked for in the past. I was a little concerned about dress codes and other draconian big-company measures. A junior-tier IT guy was giving me a tour of my new work area, and as he was showing me the available printers, I asked if there were page limits for printing; mainly colored printing. He turned to me, and with all the confidence and righteousness of a junior-tier network administrator, he says says to me, "No. But don't make us have to make one."

Really? I see the media hyping a lot of stuff around Trump. The idea was recently floated about declaring martial law and Trump immediately came out against it and the joint chiefs representative immediately echoed the sentiment. I don't think questioning the election, filling lawsuits and attempting to follow the constitution on January 6 equates to tyranny. I thought Trump would reluctantly and defiantly concede by now, but I still think that will happen after January 6. Tubberville is toying with contesting the electoral college vote but I believe he won't do so and even if he does, Biden will win out, then the reluctant concession speech will follow. Trump's lawsuits will continue and he will be on Trump T.V. bitching about this and that but he will leave just the same. Anyway, that is my prediction and we can keep the 1st amendment in tact.