• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does fact checking discriminate against conservatives? (1 Viewer)

Conservatives seem to say that fact checking is against free speech and that implies it discriminates against conservatives who are most vocal about ending the practice. So do you believe that checking for facts is discriminating against conservatives and what are facts? Let us take vaccines and autism. The studies show that there is no connection proven between the use of vaccines and autism, but many people still believe there is a connection. So, when someone writes that you should have your children skip the childhood vaccines because they cause autism, should the articles include the facts that all studies have shown it not to be true?
LOL. The real question is, who fact checks the fact checkers? Yes, many fact checkers have a lefty bias so it's not surprising that fact checkers with a bias come out with biased fact checks. Not any different than if Fox News fact checked things said by democrats.
 
Yet the fact checkers are human.

5+6=11 or maybe you could interpret that to get an alternate fact answer.

Trump said "fight" 20 times and said "peacefully" once in his speech at the Ellipse.

Or maybe you could reject that and make up an alternative fact.
 
On boolean logic, 5 + 6 = 6.
That's the interpretation you chose. But 5 chickens plus another 6 chickens is still 11 chickens.

Metaphores.
Sorry, that's a simple fact. Did he say those words that many times. Yes he did. You're entitled to your interpretation. But your opinion doesn't change what he actually said.


No facts to make up. His real followers were at the Ellipse with him when the Capitol riots started.

That's your interpretation, and your use of the word "real" is evaluative, meaning your statement cannot possibly be a fact.
 
I see no satisfying explanations to my questions. You apparently cannot support your position, for some reason this angers you and you lash out with a personal attack against me. You know nothing of me, know nothing of my intent or motives, yet you confidently spew slander like this. You are intellectually unimpressive and not worth my time as you have nothing worthwhile to offer.
I know nothing of you, your arguments on the topic of race? This is even more absurd than your original point that you do not minimize the levels of racism that exist in the US. I went back and reviewed your past comments, OUR past discussions, and sure enough, there you were doing the thing you are doing again, minimizing, gaslighting, whitewashing. For years you have been doing this. So again, what would be the point of debating with you what the extent of racism in the US...is. You are totally predisposed to the idea that racism has no relation to lower wealth and income levels of US Blacks, and you have held this viewpoint for years. There will never be any "satisfying" argument or proof for you or anyone else who has held these denials for as long as you have.

The bigger point is, you and your ilk present no counter-argument as to why Blacks have much lower levels of wealth and consistently lower levels of income. Go ahead and cite The Bell Curve or any other bit of conservative "intellectual" argument if you think I am wrong. You are never going to accept my viewpoint, so bring yours on.
 
You make unabashed racist comments like this without even stuttering.

Amazing.
That is a fact. It is not about the color of their skin. It is the way they are raised.

It is a generalization of their character as a group.

Factual. Facts are unbiased. Not racist. So many more are raised in undesirable conditions compared to whites, and it affects their character.
 
That is a fact. It is not about the color of their skin. It is the way they are raised.

It is a generalization of their character as a group.

Factual. Facts are unbiased. Not racist. So many more are raised in undesirable conditions compared to whites, and it affects their character.
Okay, let's just see you back those facts up.
 
Conservatives seem to say that fact checking is against free speech and that implies it discriminates against conservatives who are most vocal about ending the practice. So do you believe that checking for facts is discriminating against conservatives and what are facts? Let us take vaccines and autism. The studies show that there is no connection proven between the use of vaccines and autism, but many people still believe there is a connection. So, when someone writes that you should have your children skip the childhood vaccines because they cause autism, should the articles include the facts that all studies have shown it not to be true?

I have a different take--it's not that it's necessarily biased against one group or another. It's that fact-checkers are generally one or a few people who have arbitrarily been declared as (or declared themselves as) omniscient arbiters of truth. Aside from lacking face validity or even being testable for accuracy, it's also conceptually absurd and a gross oversimplification.

One or a few people do not possess a totality of knowledge with the breadth and depth necessary to accurately weigh truth versus falsehood on the level of complexity that reality typically entails. Sure, if an issue was straightforward enough for a simple "yes" or "no," such as a singular variable topic, one or a few people could typically identify the accurate truth.

But most topics are not so simple, and doing some surface-level research on complicated topics is not "fact-checking" any more than Cliffs Notes is Don Quixote.
 
And for several years they told us there was no basis for thinking Covid came out of the Wuhan lab. Ooops, got that wrong didn't they. How about the Trump Russian Collusion hoax? They missed on that one too. Wait, the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? Nope it was really Hunter's laptop. Oh, and the Joe Biden is fit as a fiddle and a cognitive dynamo behind closed doors. So with the record of these high profile claims why should we trust these "fact checkers"?
There still in no basis to think covid was lab created. If you have any evidence of that please disclose it to us. Trump is still in bed with Putin and wants us to play hockey with the Russians and Ukraine to surrender. Nothing has changed. Trump may try to rewrite history but it will fail just like his casinos.
 
Okay, let's just see you back those facts up.
I have no intention of wasting my time on the obvious. Are you blind ti innercity crime and who the majority of the population is? Are you blind to the statistics by race? Are you bling to how the average black person has less decency than the average white person?

The facts are not racist. Because of slavery, blacks in general have had a disagvantage that persists today, and a less respectable culture because of nurture under these circumstances. Their skin color started this disparity long ago, and they have not in general moved past these problems. But dont confuse it as racism when someone shuns another becuse they act like a thug. More blacks simply act like thugs. This isnt racism it is statistical fact. It is only loosely tied to their skin color because of history.
 
So opinion and personal perception. Not facts.

Opinions are not facts, even if they're yours.
Everyone knows what I just said is true. Why do you deny it? Your track record in responses to people are only to harass, so why should I care what you say? No matter what I say, you will some up with something else that is silly.
 
So it is a truism, which is by definition not a fact.

If you can't back it up, it's bullshit.
If you look at the statistics, you will see it is fact.

I just have no need to find them for you. If you seek the facts. go for it.
 
You haven't offered any.

Then you lose. You are not posting facts, you are posting bullshit.
Go ahead. Take the win if you consider it one. I will just keep laughing at you.
 
Go ahead. Take the win if you consider it one. I will just keep laughing at you.
You act like that should bother me.

Why on Earth would you think that? You got caught bullshitting to support a racist agenda, and now you're mad.
 
You act like that should bother me.

Why on Earth would you think that? You got caught bullshitting to support a racist agenda, and now you're mad.
LOL...

You are something else.

LOL...
 
That is a fact. It is not about the color of their skin. It is the way they are raised.

It is a generalization of their character as a group.

Factual. Facts are unbiased. Not racist. So many more are raised in undesirable conditions compared to whites, and it affects their character.
You apply a negative characterization to an entire group, you then stupidly claim what you doing is not racism....because....your negative characterization is a "fact", Blacks are bad characters. You then go so far as to quote MLK, that we should judge people by their character....but I just want to know, how did that work out for MLK? Was he shot because he had good character, or did the shooter kill him because he was Black, no matter the quality of his character?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom