Some of the replies to this are gold. And honestly as long as a few of us survive to roam the mostly-dead earth for resources, isn't that enough?
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
FactCheck.org calls Bernie Sanders’ claim that climate change is an “existential threat” untrue because it won’t “obliterate all people”
- Thread starter ZiggyPalffyLA
- Start date
Some of the replies to this are gold. And honestly as long as a few of us survive to roam the mostly-dead earth for resources, isn't that enough?
Any scenario in which tribes of survivors roam the wasteland feeding on the reclaimed fluids and flesh of the dead is a win.
Holy shit that's just pathetic.
I wonder which of the authors commited this absolute sin of a statement.
I wonder which of the authors commited this absolute sin of a statement.
Most of the traditional media gotchas on Bernie are like this unfortunately.
"Bernie states that the median wealth for American families is only about $200. But that includes families that have negative wealth due to mountains of unpayable debt. Excluding these non-persons gives us much more realistic numbers."
"Bernie states that the median wealth for American families is only about $200. But that includes families that have negative wealth due to mountains of unpayable debt. Excluding these non-persons gives us much more realistic numbers."
Future generations will think that Mad Max Fury Road is a historical drama
OP
OP
did he say it was an existential threat to all humanity or just an existentialist threat in general? because if the latter, he would be correct even if you want to get all technical: it might be an existential threat to the united states as a country, and to many other things.
Fact checkers only arised as a way for the liberal consensus to try to regain their ideological hegemony (and failing at doing so). So not suprised at this development.
We need a gif of Mad Max eating maggots subtitled with 'this is fine'
I'm reminded of the Vic Mignogna lawsuit, where they said that calling him a piece of shit is defamation, as he is a human man and not a piece of human feces.
Everyone who unironically makes this argument has lost the right to have their opinions taken seriously by me, ever. I'm legit mad at the stupidity.
It's all like this.
"Yes, when you look at the numbers what he said was true, but if you take away part of the numbers that we don't want to include, suddenly he's wrong! 6/5 Pinocchios"
Proves my thesis that there is only one existential threat and it's the heat death of the universe.
this made me remember what happened here in the past, i've seen some of those fact checks nitpicking the left in the past brazilian presidential campaign, while bolsonaro made his campaign based in massive distribution of fake news, they had to factcheck minor details on what the leftist candidate said, so that the fact checking website had the appearance of political "neutral", but that was clearly a bullshit both sides treatment that in the end helped bolsonaro since it was immensely disproportional, the type and the amount of lies made by bolsonaro.
I'm genuinely baffled why people who aren't part of massive oil companies and mega corporations are so resistant to the evidence in front of their eyes. Do these people not give a fuck about their grandchildren?
A lot of this fact-checking is complete idiocy like this. Mostly because they want to seem 'balanced' but that's hard to do when some candidates lie all the time and others rarely ever lie.
Yeah yeah yeah but H E J U S T H A D A H E A R T A T T A C K yo
Also relevant:
soundcloud.com
Also relevant:
Episode 83: The Unchecked Conservative Ideology of US Media's 'Fact-Check' Verticals
"Three Pinocchios!" rates The Washington Post. "Pants On Fire!" declares PolitiFact. “True, but misleading,” assess The New York Times. In a media environment overwhelmed with information, misinforma
soundcloud.com
Fact checking is important but in this case it's a bit of a quirky thing. Sure, Bernie's claim that global warming is an existential threat is a hypothesis. It's not a fact. Bernie could have said, "evidence suggests this is going to end very badly." The bottom line is he's just trying to call attention to a very serious issue, not trying to be misleading.
If you're interested in media "fact checking" of last night's debate, I think Washington Post's does a decent job of highlighting claims that warrant more examination of the context without delving into meaningless gotchas and still calling out claims like Steyer's "no raise in 40 years" that are flat out false.
The AP fact check appears to focus on only things they could conclude were wrong, which probably biases the thinking of the authors a fair bit.
The AP fact check appears to focus on only things they could conclude were wrong, which probably biases the thinking of the authors a fair bit.
Yep, I tried to post a video of Extinction Rebellion on Facebook and it was tagged as fake news with little coverage. The reason is that "we can't know for sure how many people will die".
A few minutes later, I see an ad for a local Alt-Right group lol
A few minutes later, I see an ad for a local Alt-Right group lol
This is what happens when non policy makers get hung up on the minutia without any regard for the broader context or implications of their discussion.
The same fact check included this:
Which also doesn't stand up to scrutiny imo. I understand and appreciate when they call out blatant lies or correct numbers, but these "fact checks" can get very subjective.