Fake News

[Robert]

Simple facts, you're probably right.

Which is all I ever use it for and exactly why it was being discussed.

Now, I never said any were.

Not you but others have and it was my response to an instance of this that you quoted.

I just said I wouldn't waste my time defending the site.

Except you just have.
And you have defended it to the same extent I have; all I claimed was that most of it's facts check out and you've just agreed.

I'm assuming you haven't been a member of Snopes?

No, never a member.
It's simply another online resource which often proves useful for debunking bullshit.

 

[redrumloa]

As demonstrated yet again here:
Claim: Snopes will say Trump mis-fed fish
Reality: Snopes said Trump did no such thing.

Clearly sarcasm does not come through on print as it would in a face to face over a beverage. I was being sarcastic, not taking a serious jab at you. I have my problems with Snopes, but it is doubtful even they would stoop so low as to ignore obvious video evidence in such a trivial event. There is also little political gain for "their team".

Now go look at their page(s) concerning Clinton and the Russia-Uranium scandal and tell me you don't think they are biased.

 

[redrumloa]

May have to watch it twice to really catch it all.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1994934947411076

 

[metalman]

 

[metalman]

 

[Robert]

The Independent 'live streamed' vid recorded in 2015

A spokesperson for The Independent told El Reg that it pulled the video "after it was brought to our our attention that a video stream we believed to be – and which we described as – live was in fact footage from some time ago".

"We naturally regret the human error that led to the mistake," the spokesperson added, declining to comment further.

Passing pre-recorded space videos off as "live streams" isn't a new concept. About 17 million watched Unilad's Facebook page in 2016 for different spacewalk footage from 2013.

And even this same footage has reportedly been misrepresented before by the likes of Viral USA.

 

[redrumloa]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/934972671384834049

 

[Robert]

Trump's tweet that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims

The most glaring inaccuracies have to do with white homicide victims. Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true. By overwhelming percentages, whites tend to kill other whites. Similarly, blacks tend to kill other blacks. These trends have been observed for decades.

And Trump retweeting Britain First is a hoot as well.
I imagine it won't be too long till some of you guys claim that Britain First aren't racist scumbags but just misunderstood, like poor, wee Tommy Robinson.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Trump's tweet that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims

And Trump retweeting Britain First is a hoot as well.
I imagine it won't be too long till some of you guys claim that Britain First aren't racist scumbags but just misunderstood, like poor, wee Tommy Robinson.

Not going to defend the intent of the image (because I cannot prove it) but the suggestion that the numbers are wrong is only partly born out by the referenced article. The Headline red number is not beyond the pale. (I'd say that the article is not really right that 90% and 97% are just a little off though since percentage is a measure bounded by 0% and 100% so if they are measuring by the same standard they are measuring how far off the blacks killed by whites number is then we'd have to say that 90% to 97% is off by about 3 times!).
Items 4 and 5 are transposed - maliciously or accidentally or by mis-sorting and retyping the lines by unconscious bias, I can't say. The apparent intent is to illustrate that blacks kill significantly more blacks than whites do.That seems to be what the image is aiming at. If it's intent is to imply that blacks are wiping out whites then I would assume that they would have highlighted that number.

The blacks killed by police line is just maths based on the other two killers of blacks (as it is for the whites - it's the percent left over when you take the other ones out).
It does not represent anything other than the death by cop out of the total violent death rate. It does not address the differential rate of death by cop between the two populations but it can't and can't be expected to.

The fact that the differential rate at which blacks are killed by cops (some of whom may be black) is about 4 to 1 versus whites also means that, very roughly with the given percentages, that blacks are killing blacks at 4 times the rate that whites are killing whites. This seems like it could be a problem worth talking about.

 

[Robert]

Not going to defend the intent of the image (because I cannot prove it) but the suggestion that the numbers are wrong is only partly born out by the referenced article.

But the suggestion that the numbers are right comes from where?
In this case it comes from the POTUS highlighting them.
The mentioned source apparently doesn't exist.
So, yes, this news appears to be rather fake.

The fact that the differential rate at which blacks are killed by cops (some of whom may be black) is about 4 to 1 versus whites also means that, very roughly with the given percentages, that blacks are killing blacks at 4 times the rate that whites are killing whites. This seems like it could be a problem worth talking about.

Ah, so that's why President Trump posted this unverified, inflammatory kiech from a fake source?
To generate discussion around that problem?
If only he'd said so.....

 

[Robert]

And now the Dutch Embassy have called him out for his fake news spreading:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935953115249086464

 

[metalman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935660952200138754

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935655579296681989

 

[metalman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935775552102981633

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935609305574903812

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935805606447013888

 

[redrumloa]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935775552102981633

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935609305574903812

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935805606447013888

Did you man to post these under fake news?

 

[metalman]

Did you man to post these under fake news?

they are the 3 videos Trump retweeted
I don't see anyone saying the actual videos are fake, only outrage he retweeted Jayda Fransen
and if you go through Jayda Fransen's timeline of posts, I don't see any videos that are fake
just a lot of videos of Muslims being assholes

And now the Dutch Embassy have called him out for his fake news spreading:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935953115249086464

The Netherlands doesn't say he's not a Muslim, only that he was born in the Netherlands and was prosecuted

 

[Robert]

I don't see anyone saying the actual videos are fake

--

The Netherlands doesn't say he's not a Muslim, only that he was born in the Netherlands and was prosecuted

So not a migrant, like it says in the tweet.

Therefore fake.

go through Jayda Fransen's timeline of posts, I don't see any videos that are fake

Yeah, you should probably look a little more closely.

 

[Robert]

Did you man to post these under fake news?

Given that at least one of them has been declared fake, this seems like the relevant thread to me.

And given some of the other flimsy-ass-pish already posted in this thread, the President of The United States tweeting unsubstantiated, inflammatory stuff, implicitly passing it off as fact, seems apt for the thread.

 

[metalman]

So not a migrant, like it says in the tweet.
.

that is even worse, still acting like a migrant 2nd generation

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

But the suggestion that the numbers are right comes from where?

The linked article refuting the numbers. They mention FBI numbers. I assumed in my response that you had read the link you posted.

Ah, so that's why President Trump posted this unverified, inflammatory kiech from a fake source?
To generate discussion around that problem?
If only he'd said so.....

If you think I said anything similar to the above quoted text, please try rereading with your outrage glasses off.

 

[Robert]

that is even worse, still acting like a migrant 2nd generation

It is still factually incorrect, i.e. fake.

You seem to be saying that you don't care if it's fake, so long as it chimes with your confirmation bias.