This is exactly why we have "fact checkers" these days.
A fun trick if a liberal throws up a Snopes or similar article ... ask them if they actually read the fact check ... many times they haven't. They only post them for the headline.
Many "fact checks" that are not 100% true/false, are opinion based (i.e. the "mostly true / mostly false" ones that constitute most of their "checks"). They'll cite several sources, many of them barely related to the topic being disputed, to give the illusion of a thorough "fact check". If one of the sources impedes their argument, they'll dismiss it or create a false interpretation to make it look like they're right.
I often wonder how these people sleep at night knowing that they're nothing more than propagandists. I mean, I get that they're committed to a cause, but I'd lose my mind having to twist things to make it look like I am proving something. I'd just post "inconclusive" or "not enough information" or "open to interpretation", but that means that you are telling people to think for themselves ... that doesn't work with liberal dogma very well.
it really is mental molestation and should be considered as a crime like physical molestation. mental can have lasting damage too
This is exactly why we have "fact checkers" these days.
A fun trick if a liberal throws up a Snopes or similar article ... ask them if they actually read the fact check ... many times they haven't. They only post them for the headline.
Many "fact checks" that are not 100% true/false, are opinion based (i.e. the "mostly true / mostly false" ones that constitute most of their "checks"). They'll cite several sources, many of them barely related to the topic being disputed, to give the illusion of a thorough "fact check". If one of the sources impedes their argument, they'll dismiss it or create a false interpretation to make it look like they're right.
I often wonder how these people sleep at night knowing that they're nothing more than propagandists. I mean, I get that they're committed to a cause, but I'd lose my mind having to twist things to make it look like I am proving something. I'd just post "inconclusive" or "not enough information" or "open to interpretation", but that means that you are telling people to think for themselves ... that doesn't work with liberal dogma very well.