yeah i don't think this qualifies as a lie. it's clear about what joe biden said, clear about why what he said is dumb, and tries to save face for biden (very poorly)Doug wrote:No, it is. When Snopes said that arguing about what Joe Biden said misses the point of what he didn't say, and frames it as though what he didn't say is what he was saying, Snopes is lying about what Joe Biden said
POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
if there was an article that said trump talking about using bleach in your body as an antiviral is stupid, but then mentioned that trumps core motivation is that we should be pushing for a cure/vaccine as quickly as possible, i would also write that off as bias and not call that a lie. using bleach is something he said that is stupid, and the second comment is bias, which is okay, whatever
this is different from stating that donald trump demands that everyone else has one scoop of ice cream when he has two, because you saw he got two scoops of ice cream. that's just a lie
this is different from stating that donald trump demands that everyone else has one scoop of ice cream when he has two, because you saw he got two scoops of ice cream. that's just a lie
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i read about this a while ago and i think it was? i'd have to look at it again to be sureRylinks wrote:do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i am pretty sure there are articles with at least that level of dishonosty in nearly every publication
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
ok, well, i'd have to look at it again. it certainly gets less obvious when its one garbo article for a large organization vs a small group of people who likes to make up shitRylinks wrote:i am pretty sure there are articles with at least that level of dishonosty in pretty much every publication
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I think this is deliberately misleading (although not technically a "lie", just barely), because it tries to get readers to draw a false conclusion (that Lincoln was a Marxist). It's not a lie because it never states that conclusion itself, but it's misleading because it tries to trick people into coming to that conclusion.Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:54 pm do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
This is very similar to Project Veritas's stuff, which also uses true statements (and accurate quotes) to try and get people to draw inaccurate conclusions. Although I think Veritas also blatantly lies in some of their commentary.
I think both of these are unlike the Snopes thing. I watched the relevant part of the Biden speech, and Snopes' summary does not seem misleading at all to me. Biden was giving the (inaccurate) AR-15 bullet speed data as an illustration of how deadly the AR-15 is, and the context for that statement was about how "assault weapons" (which includes the AR-15) need to be banned because lots of people (including kids) are killed by them in mass shootings. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a difficult argument to follow.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Ashenai wrote:I think this is deliberately misleading (although not technically a "lie", just barely), because it tries to get readers to draw a false conclusion (that Lincoln was a Marxist). It's not a lie because it never states that conclusion itself, but it's misleading because it tries to trick people into coming to that conclusion.Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:54 pm do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
This is very similar to Project Veritas's stuff, which also uses true statements (and accurate quotes) to try and get people to draw inaccurate conclusions. Although I think Veritas also blatantly lies in some of their commentary.
I think both of these are unlike the Snopes thing. I watched the relevant part of the Biden speech, and Snopes' summary does not seem misleading at all to me. Biden was giving the (inaccurate) AR-15 bullet speed data as an illustration of how deadly the AR-15 is, and the context for that statement was about how "assault weapons" (which includes the AR-15) need to be banned because lots of kids are killed by them in school shootings. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a difficult argument to follow.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
"lots of people are killed by AR 15s" (or any other long gun) is a lieAshenai wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:08 pmI think this is deliberately misleading (although not technically a "lie", just barely), because it tries to get readers to draw a false conclusion (that Lincoln was a Marxist). It's not a lie because it never states that conclusion itself, but it's misleading because it tries to trick people into coming to that conclusion.Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:54 pm do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
This is very similar to Project Veritas's stuff, which also uses true statements (and accurate quotes) to try and get people to draw inaccurate conclusions. Although I think Veritas also blatantly lies in some of their commentary.
I think both of these are unlike the Snopes thing. I watched the relevant part of the Biden speech, and Snopes' summary does not seem misleading at all to me. Biden was giving the (inaccurate) AR-15 bullet speed data as an illustration of how deadly the AR-15 is, and the context for that statement was about how "assault weapons" (which includes the AR-15) need to be banned because lots of people (including kids) are killed by them in mass shootings. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a difficult argument to follow.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
but it's a lie they like!Rylinks wrote: "lots of people are killed by AR 15s" (or any other long gun) is a lie
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
project veritas lies (that are not lies but lead people to the wrong conclusions) are "lies" they don't like
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
can you elaborateRylinks wrote:"lots of people are killed by AR 15s" (or any other long gun) is a lie
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Well, the Uvalde shooter used this gun, apparently:Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:10 pm"lots of people are killed by AR 15s" (or any other long gun) is a lieAshenai wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:08 pmI think this is deliberately misleading (although not technically a "lie", just barely), because it tries to get readers to draw a false conclusion (that Lincoln was a Marxist). It's not a lie because it never states that conclusion itself, but it's misleading because it tries to trick people into coming to that conclusion.Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:54 pm do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
This is very similar to Project Veritas's stuff, which also uses true statements (and accurate quotes) to try and get people to draw inaccurate conclusions. Although I think Veritas also blatantly lies in some of their commentary.
I think both of these are unlike the Snopes thing. I watched the relevant part of the Biden speech, and Snopes' summary does not seem misleading at all to me. Biden was giving the (inaccurate) AR-15 bullet speed data as an illustration of how deadly the AR-15 is, and the context for that statement was about how "assault weapons" (which includes the AR-15) need to be banned because lots of people (including kids) are killed by them in mass shootings. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a difficult argument to follow.
I don't know if that's a "long gun", I have no idea what a long gun technically is, but apparently it's "one of a slew of assault style rifles modeled after the ArmaLite AR-15". I would say that qualifies, and I don't see how it wouldn't except perhaps on some pointless gun technicality.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
this isn't a gun technicality, the vast majority of gun murders are from handguns and one mass shooting does not make "lots of people"Ashenai wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:19 pmWell, the Uvalde shooter used this gun, apparently:Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:10 pm"lots of people are killed by AR 15s" (or any other long gun) is a lieAshenai wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:08 pmI think this is deliberately misleading (although not technically a "lie", just barely), because it tries to get readers to draw a false conclusion (that Lincoln was a Marxist). It's not a lie because it never states that conclusion itself, but it's misleading because it tries to trick people into coming to that conclusion.Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:54 pm do you think https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... m-lincoln/ qualifies as a lie (there's a commentary in the zvi article)
This is very similar to Project Veritas's stuff, which also uses true statements (and accurate quotes) to try and get people to draw inaccurate conclusions. Although I think Veritas also blatantly lies in some of their commentary.
I think both of these are unlike the Snopes thing. I watched the relevant part of the Biden speech, and Snopes' summary does not seem misleading at all to me. Biden was giving the (inaccurate) AR-15 bullet speed data as an illustration of how deadly the AR-15 is, and the context for that statement was about how "assault weapons" (which includes the AR-15) need to be banned because lots of people (including kids) are killed by them in mass shootings. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a difficult argument to follow.
I don't know if that's a "long gun", I have no idea what a long gun technically is, but apparently it's "one of a slew of assault style rifles modeled after the ArmaLite AR-15". I would say that qualifies, and I don't see how it wouldn't except perhaps on some pointless gun technicality.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
less than thatRylinks wrote:
the number of people killed by rifles is very small, 1/10th the number of people killed by handguns
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I mean, recency bias, sure, but I consider 19 dead kids to be a lot of kids! If I said "the Uvalde shooter killed a lot of kids with an assault rifle", I don't think that's a lie. If I said "assault rifles kill more kids than handguns" then that would be a lie (based on what you said).
School shootings are not some inevitable phenomenon that nothing can be done about, and the evidence for that is that they're almost unheard of outside the US.
School shootings are not some inevitable phenomenon that nothing can be done about, and the evidence for that is that they're almost unheard of outside the US.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
this is like saying "nuclear power kills a lot of people" because of the chernobyl documentary and asserting "well i think 30 people is a lot of people" in defenseAshenai wrote:I mean, recency bias, sure, but I consider 19 dead kids to be a lot of kids! If I said "the Uvalde shooter killed a lot of kids with an assault rifle", I don't think that's a lie. If I said "assault rifles kill more kids than handguns" then that would be a lie (based on what you said).
School shootings are not some inevitable phenomenon that nothing can be done about, and the evidence for that is that they're almost unheard of outside the US.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Snopes: We are fact checkers, we'll let you know what's a fact and what isn't
Q: Did Biden say that bullets from an AR-15 are five times as fast as bullets from other guns
Snopes: Doesn't matter. You see, Biden's intent was
Q: Did Biden say that bullets from an AR-15 are five times as fast as bullets from other guns
Snopes: Doesn't matter. You see, Biden's intent was
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
"About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions."
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
ok. didn't it specifically say a small amount though? like hundreds within the past decade? are you saying that's a lie?Rylinks wrote:the number of people killed by rifles is very small, 1/10th the number of people killed by handguns and smaller than the number killed by knives
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Well you'd have to put that in past tense. "Nuclear power killed a lot of people." And that's a pretty weird counter-argument, because Chernobyl was seen as a super big deal, and definitely paved the way for improved nuclear safety protocols in multiple ways. I'm not sure that parallel helps your case?Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:27 pmthis is like saying "nuclear power kills a lot of people" because of the chernobyl documentary and asserting "well i think 30 people is a lot of people" in defenseAshenai wrote:I mean, recency bias, sure, but I consider 19 dead kids to be a lot of kids! If I said "the Uvalde shooter killed a lot of kids with an assault rifle", I don't think that's a lie. If I said "assault rifles kill more kids than handguns" then that would be a lie (based on what you said).
School shootings are not some inevitable phenomenon that nothing can be done about, and the evidence for that is that they're almost unheard of outside the US.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
other than the past tense, im not really sure how any of this relates to the truth of that statement. are you saying it's reasonable to say "[cause] has killed a lot of people" if that cause is responsible for any event with more than a dozen or so casualtiesAshenai wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:33 pmWell you'd have to put that in past tense. "Nuclear power killed a lot of people." And that's a pretty weird counter-argument, because Chernobyl was seen as a super big deal, and definitely paved the way for improved nuclear safety protocols in multiple ways. I'm not sure that parallel helps your case?Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:27 pmthis is like saying "nuclear power kills a lot of people" because of the chernobyl documentary and asserting "well i think 30 people is a lot of people" in defenseAshenai wrote:I mean, recency bias, sure, but I consider 19 dead kids to be a lot of kids! If I said "the Uvalde shooter killed a lot of kids with an assault rifle", I don't think that's a lie. If I said "assault rifles kill more kids than handguns" then that would be a lie (based on what you said).
School shootings are not some inevitable phenomenon that nothing can be done about, and the evidence for that is that they're almost unheard of outside the US.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
good example of a lieDoug wrote:Snopes: We are fact checkers, we'll let you know what's a fact and what isn't
Q: Did Biden say that bullets from an AR-15 are five times as fast as bullets from other guns
Snopes: Doesn't matter. You see, Biden's intent was
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i don't know who said the statement you quoted but i would probably just say it depends on the context. i could think of a context where it's a reasonable thing to say and a context where it's not reasonableRylinks wrote:other than the past tense, im not really sure how any of this relates to the truth of that statement. are you saying it's reasonable to say "[cause] has killed a lot of people" if that cause is responsible for any event with more than a dozen or so casualties
but yeah, snopes said "hundreds of people since 2007" do you disagree?
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i don't know what "it" is referring to. that quote is from ashenai's summary of the snopes article "but that's not in the article" if you're going to argue for a strong distinction between im-not-touching-you association games and lies a summary where the snopes article gives you an incorrect impression is not very good for your caseKhaos wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:32 pmok. didn't it specifically say a small amount though? like hundreds within the past decade? are you saying that's a lie?Rylinks wrote:the number of people killed by rifles is very small, 1/10th the number of people killed by handguns and smaller than the number killed by knives
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I dunno, it depends? Atrocities (e.g. the wilful murder of innocents) are judged differently. "A lot of people are killed by lightning every year" feels like a different type of statement than "A lot of people are murdered by serial killers every year". This is due to the emotional charge and cultural response!Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:39 pm other than the past tense, im not really sure how any of this relates to the truth of that statement. are you saying it's reasonable to say "[cause] has killed a lot of people" if that cause is responsible for any event with more than a dozen or so casualties
The lightning statistic doesn't make anyone angry, so it's just, like "compared to what?" "okay, is it worth spending X money to improve lightning protection, how many lives will that save?" You can say "actually, not many people die to lightning compared to traffic accidents, so it would be better to spend money on making roads safer" or whatever, and that's a reasonable argument.
Child murder is different, we don't go "oh it's just a few dozen kids overall, probably not worth worrying about, let's work on making traffic safer instead". Because we have decided that the threat of child murder is very corrosive to society, and is not to be tolerated!
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
If the exact same number of people died to serial killers and lightning strikes (say a couple hundred, I'm not going to look it up), then I would actually agree with the statement "a lot of people are killed by serial killers", and would mostly not agree with the statement "a lot of people are killed by lightning". I would not consider either statement a lie or even misleading, though. "A lot" is not a precise measurement, people use it to mean "more than I think is tolerable".
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
That was their intent, you see
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
okay so your defense is that the the statement depends on how you feel about it and it's truth cannot be judged by any standard?Ashenai wrote:I dunno, it depends? Atrocities (e.g. the wilful murder of innocents) are judged differently. "A lot of people are killed by lightning every year" feels like a different type of statement than "A lot of people are murdered by serial killers every year". This is due to the emotional charge and cultural response!Rylinks wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:39 pm other than the past tense, im not really sure how any of this relates to the truth of that statement. are you saying it's reasonable to say "[cause] has killed a lot of people" if that cause is responsible for any event with more than a dozen or so casualties
The lightning statistic doesn't make anyone angry, so it's just, like "compared to what?" "okay, is it worth spending X money to improve lightning protection, how many lives will that save?" You can say "actually, not many people die to lightning compared to traffic accidents, so it would be better to spend money on making roads safer" or whatever, and that's a reasonable argument.
Murder is different, we don't go "oh it's just a few dozen kids overall, probably not worth worrying about, let's work on making traffic safer instead". Because we have decided that the threat of child murder is very corrosive to society, and is not to be tolerated!