I have seen them swinging both left and right. The main issue is that the alt-right seems to have issues with facts.
I'm not religious, so I could give a shit about lent.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 5/6/2020 11:51 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com
wrote:
This is starting to get into lent.I will say, the snopes articles that I have researched after being told they were biased, were slightly biased. Just slightly but I did not consider them as fair and balanced as they would like people to believe.I used to really enjoy and use snopes. But then my alt-right son told me about a few cases to take a close look at. And he was right. I did not have the same conclusions as he did that they are terribly biased with an agenda etc etc. After that though I did read their stuff with a bit of a jaundiced eye. It was clear they chose to ignore or discount evidence favorable to the right but they don’t do the same, or at least not the the same degree to the left.If they give the benefit of the doubt, the benefit seemingly always swings left instead of right most of the time.If they have a choice on how to couch a response, they choose words that tend to make the left look better than the right.I am always amazed at how disconnected the far right can be from what I think is reality. Snopes is fact based and Wikipedia as a whole is pretty darn unbiased. Just because you don't like facts doesn't make them biased.On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:00 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I cant help but laugh when wikipedia is used to decipher neutrality. sadly, its one step above snopes anymore.
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
