not exactly. hating old people didn't become super trendy like this until recently. you think 10 years ago, the internet spent all day randomly talking about how they hate old people? no.
no. they just made a mistake in forgetting to label babylon articles as satire. i looked up the poll accusation you made and found zero results on google
And i know I never will
washingtonexaminer is right-wing as hell.Snopes promotes junk science study in a continuation of its bizarre grudge against the Babylon Bee
Move over, PolitiFact. You are no longer the most hilariously incompetent and obviously dishonest fact-checking outfit in town.www.washingtonexaminer.com
took 5 seconds to find shit on their fake polls.
i don't wanna have covid
Not really. It’s libertarian conservative at best
. Regardless, it puts its sources in and shows you the source and the original poll. You are really NPC holy fuck just lol. Literally yuri bezmenov talking point
Let them die to be honest. Look, I might be incel but I believe that if you are in the state to die from covid, you were going to die in like a year anyway of fucking anything because your immune system is shit and you are genetically a waste. Not to mention most people who can die from covid are so shitty immune system wise they probably don't leave their house. 104 year old grannies die from covid
Not really. It’s libertarian conservative at best
mediabiasfactcheck.com
So I went to the washington examiner, right? I know this is a crazy concept that no man has ever done before ever, I mean this is 900 IQ 8D chess tier actions.Washington Examiner
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
they have failed fact checks several times and are biased towards the right-wing
going with what most evidence says isn't being an NPC
www.snopes.com
oh no I hope you don’t die of the 99.96% survival rate virus
lol, you have a bigger chance of the testers calling the authorities to come over and put a bullet in your head then mark it as a “corona death”
do you understand that you should be careful about what the washington examiner says about snopes or anything in general?So I went to the washington examiner, right? I know this is a crazy concept that no man has ever done before ever, I mean this is 900 IQ 8D chess tier actions.
But I actually clicked on it, and I didn't write it off instantly. I actually looked at someone I'm arguing with's source. I know it's unheard of.
Sure enough, it actually led me to the source of snopes itself. Which was the whole point of me putting down that fucking article dude.
Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real
In a news cycle full of clownish characters and outrageous rhetoric, it’s no wonder satire isn’t fully registering with a lot of readers.
and (OH MY GOD DUDE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HANDLE THIS)
the study asked respondents to say whether they believe the following sentences are true or false:
Those badly paraphrased sentences are drawn from the following obviously satirical Babylon Bee headlines:
- “Most Americans believe that major media companies should apologize for pushing the now-debunked news story of collusion between President Trump and Russia.”
- “Representative Ilhan Omar said that being Jewish is an inherently hostile act, especially among those living in Israel.”
- “CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said his belief that Trump colluded with Russia is unshakable; it will not change regardless of statements or evidence to the contrary.”
- “Nation Awaits Apology From Media That Pushed Fake News Story For Two Years”
- Ilhan Omar: 'If Israel Is So Innocent, Then Why Do They Insist On Being Jews?'
- CNN: 'God Allowed The Mueller Report To Test Our Unshakable Faith In Collusion'
Literally from the fucking snopes study itself. All washington examiner did was document it and make it easier to understand and also correlated the snopes articles to the original sourced babylon bee articles.
Am I going too fast for you? Are the circuits frying? Really you didn't even need to use the washington examiner source I posted, all you had to do was go on it and look at the original snopes study and then correlate the babylon bee stories to the snopes stories. Washington examiner just did that for you.
Every media has bias, this is true. The Washington examiner article I linked you though posted the fucking source of the snopes poll. You don’t even need to read the Washington examiner, you yourself can go to the snopes poll, find the titles and then link them to the original Babylon bee article to see they were fraudulently taken out of context. The source I linked just makes it easier.
not all sources are biased? many aren't. but washington examiner has failed numerous fact checks. they aren't a good source. yet you pick them over snopes.Every media has bias, this is true. The Washington examiner article I linked you though posted the fucking source of the snopes poll. You don’t even need to read the Washington examiner, you yourself can go to the snopes poll, find the titles and then link them to the original Babylon bee article to see they were fraudulently taken out of context. The source I linked just makes it easier.
You really are MK ultra’d holy shit. Literally watching an NPC’s head explode
>many sources aren’t biased
You have to be trolling at this point. Bias is inescapable as humans can never be entirely 100% objective.Reuters isn't biased. and they're a news source. go on mediabiasfactcheck and you will find many sources without a bias. also, snopes used to forget to tag babylon under satire but then they learned that they should, so they made a mistake and corrected it>many sources aren’t biased
regardless, I said why I chose the Washington examiner. It Gives you the snope article and the Babylon bee article so you can correlate the 2 yourself. I don’t expect you to go to the Babylon bee and look at each article to find the one mentioned in the snopes article (to then find that hes, snopes did intentionally remove the satire from the Babylon bee article titles).
I can’t tell if your reading comprehension is 0
or if you are having some npc brain malfunction.
>REUTERS ISNT BIASED
They purposefully took out context of Babylon bee articles and showed them to people without the satirical parts. Let me make an example for you because you don’t know what that means, retard.
I'm specializing in Electrical installation and training for a position as a Journeyman. I need to complete an OSHA class of 30 hours and need one semester of training in order to graduate. Ater I graduate I'll start working in an apprenticeship and be supervised on site for the next 5-6 years by government officials until I've been awarded my license.
again, snopes didn't realize initially that babylon is satire and now they finally do. read the wikipedia article
Your hot takes are so wrong it's comedy goldCope. It’s a factual statement that you are probably more likely to get shot by the corona testers than actually dying of corona
reuters isn't that mainstream of a news source. also, fox news is nearly just as mainstream as cnn. so mainstream media really varies by bias.
>ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HAS A RIGHT WING BIAS
Look further in this conversation. I can't tell if this guy is legitimately retarded, his reading comprehension just isn't there, or if he is having giga NPC moment.
illegal immigrant IS a biased word. the word is an emotional word used to condemn immigrants who come in undocumented. thats why reuters doesn't use the word. it has a bias expressing disapproval of immigration without documentation. its a word used by right-wing media. undocumented immigrant is a very neutral word because you're neither condemning nor condoning.
Let me go really slow for you.
www.snopes.com
maybe they forgot to delete itLet me go really slow for you.
Immigrant, who come in undocumented. Right?
Undocumented immigration is against the law.
What is something against the law called? Illegal. So it would be "Illegal immigration".
For snopes to check an article the article in question must come from a source that is seen as credible and reliable by some, which is why they have to fact check it. Regardless, and what's even worse, is that Snopes still has their original study up.
They still have this up, despite it being fictitiously done and purposefully tampering with the question at hand in the article.Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real
In a news cycle full of clownish characters and outrageous rhetoric, it’s no wonder satire isn’t fully registering with a lot of readers.
>maybe they forgot to delete it
it doesn't matter how euphemistic it sounds. it's still neutral because it doesn't express any opposition to undocumented immigrants unlike the word illegal immigrant which is used unanimously by rightwing media. thats why reuters decides its best to use the word undocumented immigrant. notice how you commanding the word illegal suggests opposition to undocumented immigration
It does matter how euphemistic it sounds. your entire argument about why we shouldn’t use “illegal” is because illegal has negative connotations to it. “Undocumented” is the exact opposite. You’d rather take in a unicorn than a horse with a spike on its head, but they’re the same thing said differently.
Holy shit I just did a backflip at your mental gymnastics. Snopes not only made 2 mistakes, but one of their mistakes is still up on their site. The argument is that every site has bias including snopes, not that the Washington examiner was credible. However, in my link it was credible because it gave you the sources and original snopes article and the original Babylon bee article.
undocumented isn't a positive word because people still will know its illegal including anti-undocumented immigration activists. thus it is a neutral word. it's certainly at least more neutral than illegal immigrant
Ok, then let’s use snopes article itself
www.snopes.com
again, this isn't proof snopes is fake news because they maybe made one mistake. you haven't proven that snopes is an unreliable sourceOk, then let’s use snopes article itself
“Most Americans believe that major media companies should apologize for pushing the now-debunked news story of collusion between President Trump and Russia.”Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real
In a news cycle full of clownish characters and outrageous rhetoric, it’s no wonder satire isn’t fully registering with a lot of readers.
Those badly paraphrased sentences are drawn from the following obviously satirical Babylon Bee headlines:
- “Representative Ilhan Omar said that being Jewish is an inherently hostile act, especially among those living in Israel.”
- “CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said his belief that Trump colluded with Russia is unshakable; it will not change regardless of statements or evidence to the contrary.”
- “Nation Awaits Apology From Media That Pushed Fake News Story For Two Years”
- Ilhan Omar: 'If Israel Is So Innocent, Then Why Do They Insist On Being Jews?'
- CNN: 'God Allowed The Mueller Report To Test Our Unshakable Faith In Collusion'
It’s 2 mistakes, and this one is still up as a study. If snopes links a false study as legitimate then it is not reliable.
he wont dont worryoh no I hope you don’t die of the 99.96% survival rate virus
lol, you have a bigger chance of the testers calling the authorities to come over and put a bullet in your head then mark it as a “corona death”
snopes prolly forgot to label it satire and then later it started to learn to do so. you didn't prove snopes is fake news. you just don't like snopes because they show info you don't wanna hear
it's not known but prolly not
No, they purposefully made a fake study. That’s being not credible dude LMAO. They themselves made a fake fucking study. That makes it fake news
prove they did that. it seems snopes simply forgot to classify it as satire, which it learned to do later on read the wiki article i showed you
You are talking about the actual classification. They did that, but this is about scopes creating a fake study.
finding one mistaken article by snopes isn't proof they're fake news. websites can make mistakes all the time. look up hasty generalizations fallacy
It’s not an article. It is a STUDY made by SNOPES themself that was FALSE that they continue to have put on their website. You are truly dense if you don’t understand this.
read the whole article. i bet it goes more in depth than that
What article??? The study? JFL
i bet the article was misinterpreted by you? the covid-19 deaths isn't inflated
You can read the study yourself. Also lol @ going back to the covid 19 shit. Yes they are and they’ve been caught inflating it
