https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seattle-police-chief-letter/ Their rating is that this is mostly false. I can’t believe they rated the whole story as mostly false just based on semantics. If you read the letter from Best than you’ll see that she says you are pretty much on your own. That’s how I’d sum it up. How many people would read this and agree that this is mostly false?
Anybody on Twitter (or a RW Blog) who put the Fake Words in quote marks OBVIOUSLY spread FAKE News. SEMANTICS matters when someone represents a Mischaracterization as a direct quote. Obviously the claim was Mostly False. Beyond question. This Tweet (below) with the mischaractization, in quote marks, is Patently FALSE: ^It is a technique used quite often by Extreme RW Clickbait sites.
So how do you take what she said? Can't use the tools, like pepper spray, disperse large violent crowds due to a local ordinance. Won't put her officers in danger to protect property without those tools. What is your take away? My take away is exactly the same as Mr. Rufo's take away. Without the cops ability to use the tools that are commonly used to disperse crowds....you're on your own because they won't be able to do jack.
That would be derailing this thread. Conclusion: Snopes must be very dishonest to require such a desperate defense. "Deliberately derailing threads 10 points 3 months" PF Rules
my post was on topic - and a valid reply to the post I replied too I think if the thread was gonna be on the "seattle-police-chief-letter" vs the title "Snopes Fact Checking" maybe the title should be changed too "Snopes Fact Checking - seattle-police-chief-letter" the title is misleading, as the topic really seems to be about the dislike of Snope's fact checking to me
but it's not a quote, saying that was her quote makes it mostly false had the political propaganda stuck to the truth, then it would not of been mostly false
yes, they are left leaning, but they still seem to be pretty accurate with their fact checking what "authority" did you think they would have? did you expect a government run fact checking site?
And how could you have read the site in such a short time to arrive at that conclusion? Otherwise you'd hold a different opinion.
(FROM THE SITE Snopes “fact checkers” include whores, prostitutes, and pot-smoking bloggers – busted red-handed: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html These are the clowns that Facebook plans to use to “fact-check” and censor real independent news they plan to call “fake news” for calling out the truth on everything from Trumps massive electoral landslide victory to GMO dangers to vaccine toxins.
Under a search for "snopes + objectivity"..... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-Sn...-this-era-of-misinformation-run-amuck?share=1
yeah, that sounds like an "unbiased" site review of Snopes... NOT facebook is run by a Conservative that said he would not ban Trump political ads that contained lies, but then banned liberal ads that tested this with ads that contained intentional lies "Facebook takes down false ad from PAC on Republican Graham" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-from-pac-on-republican-graham-idUSKBN1X50IZ "Facebook Inc said on Saturday that it had removed an ad which falsely claimed that U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham supported the Green New Deal" this was right after facebook told congress they would not do this
I would like to see more fact checking sites pop up, left leaning ones, right leaning ones, the more fact checkers the better
Ever hear of the word "paraphrasing"? There are many reasons to use quotation marks. Not just to indicate a direct quote.