Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: The Ministry of Truth (Score 1) 117

So you found a couple of cherry-picked cases where it can be argued that snopes wasn't perfect.
That's not proof that snopes is liberally biased. That's proof that imperfect humans work for snopes.

The denial runs strong in you.

If someone were so inclined they could find examples where Snopes erred in the other direction.

Please, cite three such examples where Snopes had an obvious conservative bias.

For example their reporting on the Clinton uranium non-scandal.
For months their article left out the key fact that the russian company never even had an export license. It wasn't until the April 5th update that the author finally added that major part to the story.

So, the one example you cite exonerates Clinton from a charge of corruption and 'pay to play'. And their error is not mentioning an export restriction.

Regardless, the handful of supposedly biased articles doesn't even come close to the absolute mountain of examples where they were 'perfect.'

You come so close in your wisdom, to veer into the mountainside at the last moment.

The entire argument of "Snopes has a liberal bias in its political articles" is that they are very trustworthy in their non-political articles. They don't shade the truth, and they don't just take someone's explanation at face value. But even in the one example you give, there is an obvious decision to accept Hillary's explanation of the Clinton Foundation's donations, and spin all assumed facts into an exoneration of her personally.

From your example:

The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

This completely ignores two crucial points. First, "all the evidence" is Hillary's comments that she didn't do it, and her underling's comments that she didn't do it.

Second, it dismisses a donation of over $100,000,000, because of "timing", as if people running governments and businesses never plan more than one month ahead. No one in Russia said, "Hmmm, maybe we should bribe the next US President with a hundred million dollars so we can buy their uranium." After all, in 2007, no one knew Hillary Clinton was going to be Secretary of State in 2009.

Although it can't be proven that the donors did indeed pay Clinton to ensure the deal was approved, that claim cannot possibly be proven false as that article does. That is why there are claims from right-leaning voices that say that Snopes' political articles are left-leaning.

Comment Re: The Ministry of Truth (Score 1) 117

Sources claiming Snopes is liberal are all right leaning.

You spend all day thinking up something that obvious? (Checks timestamps) No, just two hours.

Of course the liberal sites that agree with Snopes' liberal political leanings are not going to say Snopes is liberal-biased. The liberal sites will claim Snopes is non-partisan, therefor they can be trusted when they don't find any lies or deceit in Hillary's comments.

Comment Re:i.e. Trump (Score 2, Informative) 112

When you want to prove a point with a bomb strike, not a body count, you give warning that you are doing it. This lets the 'enemy' move their troops out, and prevents the news coverage from focusing on all those "poor innocent soldiers" lying dead in the target zone.

The fact that you can't even conceive there is a reason to warn the enemy this way shows how much you understand of the real world.

Now go back to class so you can get more idiotic arguments shoved into your brain.

Comment Re:There must be a mistake ... (Score 1, Interesting) 312

Women can fix this by changing their selection criteria en masse. As long as women only choose those men who can support themselves and others while men choose women with youth and beauty, the future will be still be filled with men who have to compete and women who don't.

Women are working on that now. Have you seen some of the wimpy dolts that couldn't survive on their own for a month, but as long as they speak the correct drivel they have dumb college girls clinging to them?

The balancing force of that species suicide is that when the useless dolts manage to impregnate them, the girls get abortions because they realize that the dolts can't support themselves, much less a new child.

Slashdot Top Deals

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato