>>1792371

>>1792432

>>1792489

Snopes' bias has been well known for years, but the real reason why Snopes is terrible is because their sources are junk. Seriously, Cracked.com is has more reliable citations than Snopes, and that's really saying something. If someone wrote it in a book somewhere, or posted it on their blog, it is listed as a reliable source. They were good at "debunking" the viral chainletters of the early 00s, but starting around 10 years ago they shifted to outright pushing propaganda. If anyone cites or links you to a Snopes article simply laugh at them. The I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE! skeptical euphoric fedora tipping “intellectuals” have been a joke for years.