LogFAQs > #924178455

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Nationalist politics topic 16: Zealots accidentally bring us to historical truth
Mr Lasastryke 07/03/19 3:06:14 AM #240:	SmartMuffin posted... No, sorry, it absolutely needs to be fact checked, because providing the necessary context shows it to be completely meaningless, which is arguably even worse than simply being factually incorrect. If the statement you want to make about "the three richest families" also applies just as well to "a dude with $1 net worth" then your statement is pointless. Or, more accurately, the entire point of your statement is to actively mislead the public about the state of inequality. providing context != fact checking. ESPECIALLY when part of this context providing is saying that it's "not especially meaningful," which is an entirely subjective statement. who is this fact checker to tell me that bernie's quote can't mean something to me? this is like if bernie said "because of the welfare system the poor get money from the government" and the "fact check" would be "well technically he's right BUT THIS IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE THE POOR GET STUCK IN THE WELFARE TRAP BECAUSE OF THIS PERVERSE SYSTEM." that's not "fact checking," that's an opinion essay. i'm not saying providing context doesn't have any merit. but if you do this, don't call it fact checking (especially when this providing of context only seems to be done to bernie's quotes). if anything, THAT'S misleading, because it gives a flavor of objectivity to something that's actually subjective criticism. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:924178455] in Nationalis... [t:77768351]...</cite> <quote><cite>SmartMuffin posted...</cite> <quote>No, sorry, it absolutely needs to be fact checked, because providing the necessary context shows it to be completely meaningless, which is arguably even worse than simply being factually incorrect. If the statement you want to make about "the three richest families" also applies just as well to "a dude with $1 net worth" then your statement is pointless. Or, more accurately, the entire point of your statement is to actively mislead the public about the state of inequality.</quote> providing context != fact checking. ESPECIALLY when part of this context providing is saying that it's "not especially meaningful," which is an entirely subjective statement. who is this fact checker to tell me that bernie's quote can't mean something to me? this is like if bernie said "because of the welfare system the poor get money from the government" and the "fact check" would be "well technically he's right BUT THIS IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE THE POOR GET STUCK IN THE WELFARE TRAP BECAUSE OF THIS PERVERSE SYSTEM." that's not "fact checking," that's an opinion essay. i'm not saying providing context doesn't have any merit. but if you do this, don't call it fact checking (especially when this providing of context only seems to be done to bernie's quotes). if anything, THAT'S misleading, because it gives a flavor of objectivity to something that's actually subjective criticism. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1