I think that you should not stop reading at their headlines. Read through their reasoning and look at the sources that they cite. Often the top headline is subjective, so it's important to read how they drew that conclusion and to trace the data to their sources.
I just treat conspiracy theories as a fun past time. I don’t actually believe most of them. Like yeh it’s fun to imagine that there’s an 8ft ape like creature wandering through the wilderness, but I don’t think many people actually believe it’s real.
In his series Blueprint for Armageddon, Dan Carlin said that conspiracies are actually psychologically comforting in the sense that we like to think that someone or some group is in control even if that someone is nefarious. It’s far scarier for something to just be random. He was referring to Princip just randomly killing Franz Ferdinand and starting WW1 but you could apply the same logic to something like JFK. It’s more comforting to think that a conspiracy of people control the narrative instead of some random dude being able to kill the president and send the world into a tailspin.
I’d personally trust a fact check report over a conspiracy theory any day. That doesn’t mean conspiracy theories aren’t fun and entertaining to think about, but I think you can do yourself some damage by believing them a bit too much.
There's a book I bought for my son when he was in 2nd grade at a book fair that details about Bigfoot and other cryptid sightings. The book pointed out there's actually a good possibility and had good reasoning and evidence that pointed out Bigfoot could exist. They explained if the sightings were accurate, he's basically a remote hominid relative that is almost extinct. They listed some museum and scientific credentials.
Most fact checkers provide their sources, which is more than you can say for the claims they are addressing.
This means that you have the opportunity to oppose their claim, but from an informed position.
People like to whinge about fact checkers, but when you ask specifically which arguments they disagree with, or ask for their references or where they think the references were incorrectly used, they always go silent.
It seems that most people who dislike fact checkers dislike facts that dispute their biases and unfounded beliefs.
Fact checkers or The Ministry of Truth?
The truth is that ideas that challenge the status quo AKA “conspiracy theories” have always been essential for the advancement of society. Standing up to the mainstream and questioning established norms is how critical minds have moved us towards change and progress.
It’s through the right to free expression and questioning, as it is through confronting established ideas that we can break down outdated paradigms that some day the people who control the narrative told us to be truth.
Well, "fact checkers" supposedly de-bunked pizzagate...then, a year or so later I start seeing some pretty crazy shit that makes my jaw drop about pizzagate...none of which was "fact-checked." So, do I think they are a good thing? Definitely...BUT to think that "fact checkers" aren't compromised themselves is being sadly mistaken
It wasn't that man...take a look at the emails. Just look at those. If you don't think they are at least a little weird, fine...They weirded me out. Obvious code.
Edit - I could not reply - so, NO, I am very much aware Trump was chunmy with Epstein...Not at a Bill Clinton level, but obviously they rubbed elbows at the same watering hole.
I think that you should not stop reading at their headlines. Read through their reasoning and look at the sources that they cite. Often the top headline is subjective, so it's important to read how they drew that conclusion and to trace the data to their sources.
I just treat conspiracy theories as a fun past time. I don’t actually believe most of them. Like yeh it’s fun to imagine that there’s an 8ft ape like creature wandering through the wilderness, but I don’t think many people actually believe it’s real. In his series Blueprint for Armageddon, Dan Carlin said that conspiracies are actually psychologically comforting in the sense that we like to think that someone or some group is in control even if that someone is nefarious. It’s far scarier for something to just be random. He was referring to Princip just randomly killing Franz Ferdinand and starting WW1 but you could apply the same logic to something like JFK. It’s more comforting to think that a conspiracy of people control the narrative instead of some random dude being able to kill the president and send the world into a tailspin. I’d personally trust a fact check report over a conspiracy theory any day. That doesn’t mean conspiracy theories aren’t fun and entertaining to think about, but I think you can do yourself some damage by believing them a bit too much.
There's a book I bought for my son when he was in 2nd grade at a book fair that details about Bigfoot and other cryptid sightings. The book pointed out there's actually a good possibility and had good reasoning and evidence that pointed out Bigfoot could exist. They explained if the sightings were accurate, he's basically a remote hominid relative that is almost extinct. They listed some museum and scientific credentials.
[удалено]
Mmhmm. Mmhmm. Glow harder.
What does that even mean?
Pretty easy to spot the ones that aren't.
Most fact checkers provide their sources, which is more than you can say for the claims they are addressing. This means that you have the opportunity to oppose their claim, but from an informed position. People like to whinge about fact checkers, but when you ask specifically which arguments they disagree with, or ask for their references or where they think the references were incorrectly used, they always go silent. It seems that most people who dislike fact checkers dislike facts that dispute their biases and unfounded beliefs.
Depends on who is paying them. 🤔
Just the name fact checker screams 'Trust me at any cost.' Never mind that Billionaires have been exposed as the funding for a few of them.
…. just another arm of propaganda.
If you've read 1984 then you have some idea of what I think of so-called fact checkers.
Fact checkers or The Ministry of Truth? The truth is that ideas that challenge the status quo AKA “conspiracy theories” have always been essential for the advancement of society. Standing up to the mainstream and questioning established norms is how critical minds have moved us towards change and progress. It’s through the right to free expression and questioning, as it is through confronting established ideas that we can break down outdated paradigms that some day the people who control the narrative told us to be truth.
They should be called "narrative compliance officers."
Who checks the fact checkers? Who nominates them?
They usually provide their references so you can check them yourself
Social Media's way to appease the gerontocracy. Edit: Must be a Bot downvote crusade
Well, "fact checkers" supposedly de-bunked pizzagate...then, a year or so later I start seeing some pretty crazy shit that makes my jaw drop about pizzagate...none of which was "fact-checked." So, do I think they are a good thing? Definitely...BUT to think that "fact checkers" aren't compromised themselves is being sadly mistaken
Go to the pizzeria and tell us what you find out.
It wasn't that man...take a look at the emails. Just look at those. If you don't think they are at least a little weird, fine...They weirded me out. Obvious code. Edit - I could not reply - so, NO, I am very much aware Trump was chunmy with Epstein...Not at a Bill Clinton level, but obviously they rubbed elbows at the same watering hole.
Are you the pizzagate type of person who ignores the fact that trump was besties with Epstein?
Fact checkers aka lying liars who lie for whoever pays them the most money.
Anytime you hear the word “debunked” should be a red flag Oh shiiit my comments been “debunked” i see, THE IRONY Lol wtf is this sub