Seems like nonsense[1] to me.

[1] I mean this as the word is normally used.

> Mixture: During the debate, Trump was repeatedly asked and invited to explicitly and clearly condemn white supremacists, and he did not do that.

He did condemn it; it literally follows up with "Sure, I'm willing to do that."

And for added bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc

38 Times President Trump Has Condemned Racism and White Supremacy

-------------------------

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-120million-deaths-co...

> Mostly False: Biden said "Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID" at the Pennsylvania event in apparent reference to U.S. fatalities.

There is literally a video of him in the article doing it

-------------------------

Took literally a couple of seconds to find evidence.

Oddly enough, I'm not sure there's any sensible way to refute me without first trying to refute that original post.

^ This is you stating that fact checking isn't used by malicious actors and there is no evidence to show it is.

I just demonstrated with evidence that it is.

You are now trying to twist your way out of this by equating "fact checkers" (IE major organisation presenting opinions as facts that are not up for debate) and the act of correcting misinformation as one and the same thing.

Twisting of words is one of many dishonest tactics used by progressives in debate and it's the same one you are attempting to use right now.

For the record, I'm good at pointing out dishonest tactics and people who use them in debate, I wouldn't continue.

Also while this is going down this path, I'm going to bring up the narcissists prayer so we can refer back to it later if you continue with this approach.

Trustworthy sources of information accept the limits of their knowledge and recognise their own ability to make mistakes. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

"Fact-checking" by definition, implies infinitely-superior, infallible knowledge.

Ie, bullshit.

You're obviously not the target audience of fact-checkers. Most people agree on some basic principles of reality that can't be skewed.

For example, when a politician says something in public that millions of people hear and is recorded on video, and then he says he didn't say it, that is a lie. A fact-checker would provide the evidence and context.

Or if a politician says that nothing could be done to reduce Covid deaths in the US, that is less straightforward but also an easy lie to disprove because there are people who died due to lack of available tests for their coworkers, or people who died because of a huge nightclub being allowed to stay open.

No, but I do believe that “fact-checkers” get it wrong often enough to be skeptical about what they say is.

Also, for what it's worth, it was a math video I was watching.

You don't seem to understand that this is how US elections are always called? The press calls the state when they estimate it's impossible for it to go any other way, and then the electors vote a while later.

If your statements don't hold water, you should be held accountable for it, and there should be consequences according to your power. When those consequences is more power, you sooner or later arrive at Mussolini (look him up).

Though, for many people, facts, science, teachers, doctors, none of that matter. So this means the political system must get out of its stalemates and address the real issues that lie beneath the bullshitters. People don't think alike, so you can't reach everyone, even if you think you have all the facts. Besides, facts can always be disputed, though not unreasonably so.

My conclusion is, no fact-checking will ever be sexy and viral. People will die of boredom instead :)

Good try though!

https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png

In cases of no evidence, they'll usually rule favorably if it's a narrative they like. Such as here with "Unproven, but alludes to a deeper truth":

https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png

Compared that to consistently rating Trump's claims as "Pants on fire" for lack of evidence, or "Mostly False" even when they found strong supporting evidence:

https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png

There's many topics which, even if I agree with the writer, should be in the realm of an article or opinion piece rather than a fact check (E.G: "AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts record; BLM falsely accused of coordinating violent protests"). Fact checks should ideally stick to debunking falsifiable claims, rather than providing a counterargument for/against a large political issue.