Snopes.com is cancer

Hilarious

another problem i see, there are several sister sites popping up lately in europe, all quoting snopes, only in german, covering their ties as "non-profit communities", like this one here in german:

mimikama.at/allgemein/sterbender-cia-agent-mit-erschreckendem-gestaendnis/

i sense soros-open-society-patterns. once normies don't have somewhere to run to, to gather quick debunking arguments at snopes & co (debunking the debunk costs a lot of time), real red-pilling for the masses can start.

i admit just lurked 1 year

If Snopes was fake, don't you think they would have posted that on Snopes?

Liberal kike couple**. Snopes was quite literally two jews who sat around googling shit all day. pic related.
I thought you would have already learned your lesson by now Mike, your going to have to be a little more subtle if you want to successfully shill here.

...

The problem with going after ((("""""Fact""""" """""Checkers""""""))) is that it's like playing whack-a-mole. If we discredit them in the eyes of normalfags (somehow), another will just pop up. They'll use all the same buzzwords (independent, non-profit, etc.) and the (((media))) apparatus (especially (((Google)))) will push them all the same.

Setting up competitors probably wouldn't win over normies either, but it would probably get normie "conservatives" slightly inoculated against the lies of (((Snopes))), (((Politifact))), and other similar lying (((""""""""fact-checkers""""""))). At the very least, creating noise would disrupt the illusion of consensus.

To be honest, all the evidence you need to to see their bias is the fact that one side (the left) consistently sees them as an unbiased source of information. If you're not already aware of it, I'll introduce you to the "hostile media effect." Here's an example of it in action:

Basically, people with different stances both saw the same news reel as being biased against their own side. Obviously, this should not be taken to mean a hostile media doesn't exist, but it appears to imply that you need to express a quite significant bias toward one side or the other to get any group to actually see you as being unbiased.

Wait what happened?

Search: Malcom Howard

Lefties like a website run by degenerate Jews. Whoopdy-fucking-doo. Why should anyone care about (((fact checkers)))? What's Snope doing that warrants our attention?

i agree, especially the "hostile media effect" is something i didn't really consider until now.

my personal problem with snopes is: it's basically left-propaganda indoctrination, like antifa, or video-related (open society). social media itself once gave the opportunity for a very short period of time to search for appropiate resources by connecting to appropiate networks in the individual's point of view. what in reality happened in a very short period of time was that in fact nearly everyone created his or her own left-leaning indoctrination-bubble, even the center-oriented people. then suddenly in october 2016 pizzagate popped up, the fakenews-narrative was born and snopes was (((officially))) given the task to (((debunk))) fakenews. well, the result is, even the center-left, center-right-leaning people in mid-europe don't realize that snopes is basically a far left propaganda machine for the masses. so red-pilling is a hard process here in mid-europe for an instance, (((truth))) is (((protected))) and (((google))) filters out every criticism in their search result (youtube-use here is fundamentally different as is the allowed content). if you look the search results concerning snopes you'll mostly find links leading to snopes-urls. so even if i debate with conservatives here, they'll try to debunk my claims with snopes through sister-sites like i posted above…

AUDIBLE KEK

You ever spent time discussing shit with lefties? They see these fact-checking sites as being a smoking gun of sorts. They think that, because they often criticize lefty politicians as well, that MUST mean they are completely unbiased and therefore the stance they take on an issue is the absolute end of the discussion. This is made even worse when they just look at the total lie count on politifact or somesuch with no regard whatsoever about the specifics which make up that total. When you ask them if there's a specific lie they want to discuss in detail they never provide one. They put that onus on you.

When you take the initiative to bring up a specific issue that is dishonestly represented by these sites, They basically wear you out by avoiding the issue saying it's unimportant and to find a more important one. Then when you get tired of playing their stupid game they self righteously strut around as if they won the argument.

In short: Fact checking sites are the perfect propaganda tool for appealing to liberal elitists who might actually take a moment to at least listen to what you have to say if these outlets didn't exist. If you have a hard time taking them at their word when they say something is true or untrue, it means YOU'RE the one with the bias in their eyes.

John Podesta personally raped children trafficked through an underground railway underneath Comet Pizza in DC. When MSM debunks this, it's part of a cover-up. Keep LARPing as an investigator, goy, it's not a psyop to make you look stupid at all.

So what if argumentative leftists cite Snopes? If your argument is sound, you won't have to worry about them citing a propaganda page, since propaganda doesn't rely on facts. Just debunk their shit with actual evidence. That's how you win arguments. Or just meme on them for being libshits to begin with.

Good propaganda, like snopes and politifact, sprinkles their lies with a coating of truth. On any given page of these fact checking sites you will find that there is some truth to what they're saying. This coating of truth is what lefties will autistically focus on without regard to whatever evidence you provide pertaining to the falsehood. They see the kernel of truth in the piece and see that as the important part while simply insulting your intelligence when you take a minute to look at anything other than that bit of truth.

that sounds like a great shoop

That's a classic misdirection tactic. Call it out when they do that, and pressure them into defend their original thesis.

"FALSE all alleged witnesses have died shortly before testifying"

Remember, Snopes built their credibility when they debunked stuff appearing in whacky chain emails your aunt on AOL forwarded to you.

However there's evidence they veered off into bullshit quite early. See vid related about Snopes "debunking" the "You eat 8 Spiders in your sleep" urban legend.
The other one is the case of the Chinese artist who ate roated Human fetuses. Snopes "debunked" this too, yet a Taiwanese friend of mine was adamant that both the artist and serval hospitals got into legal trouble becuase the guy aquired "medical waste" (aka abortion remains").

Yes, because that wasn't what we were claiming to begin with.

i admit, i looked stupid at times (blockchain search), i never stopped rechecking resources, but now i simply feel kind of exhausted. are those psyop-side-effects? video related

...

Around the time of the Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas deaths there was a story about a DC area apartment complex exploding with reports of "missing people". The odd thing is that "Snopes" "debunked" the story before it ever hit the news. Within hours of the event snopes had an article up "debunking" the event. It turns out that they only "debunked" rumors of DNC staff being among the dead or missing, while admitting there were unknown "missing" people. How they would know that staffer(s) were or were not among the "unknown missing people" is beyond anyone's imagination.

I recently went to find the story on Snopes again and found they had changed the title of the Snopes article to something nonsensical in an apparent attempt to obfuscate search results for the event.

I know nothing special about the event. Only that it showed Snopes really gets ahead of certain stories and has psychic abilities apparently.

This part is blatantly, obviously true. I don't understand how anyone could do even a little bit of research on the Podestas and not realize that these guys are complete fucking creeps. I don't know or care how many of the specific allegations about Comet Ping Pong are actually true, I just know John and Tony Podesta belong in a gas chamber.

put the link into web.archive.org and see if it was archived

These are great. Are there more?

...

Here is one

classic. saved

There's really nothing that can or needs to be done about (((fact checkers))). Anyone with half a brain knows that they're clearly biased bullshit at this point. If they mattered, Trump would not have won, for example.

I would like to know the formal titles for the fallacies that they employ though. The common ones I see them always use are

...

No shit.

I really think some user needs to start a fact checking site.
Call is BS checker, and the first BS check should be to prove snopes is BS

Snopes a great idea, though. They focus on obvious bullshit 99% of the timeinto it.

And then occasionally insert their own propaganda

While Hillary did defend a man accused of raping a 12 year old by using loopholes to secure a better plea bargain, and later laughed about this case, We rate this [MOSTLY FALSE]

Politifact did that with nigger employment numbers

There is a website called politifactbias.com but it is not super active (buit it is still active) The website is good

Ayyyyyy laddywew