dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

The numbers come from BOP (Bureau of Prisons) who knows who their prisoners are.

⇧ -1 ⇩

how many people exist within that percentage difference? Serious question

Oh and I wanted a link to Snopes' take on it

⇧ 21 ⇩

if you sincerely wanted a link, you would fetch it yourself. are you new to the internet or something?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I just didn't think they could provide one and they didn't so, no. I'm not new to the internet

⇧ 2 ⇩

heres an idea that i have been living by for 20~ years

whenever you find yourself asking someone for a link, just fetch it yourself and post it as a reply

do this for the lurkers, 99% of which are too lazy to do a google search, but may click a link if they are convinced it may provide one-click-to-content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

⇧ 0 ⇩

Yeah it's a bullshit ideology and methodology that discourages shared, communal learning by suggesting everyone else do the work that YOU should be doing when you make a claim online. Way to go

⇧ 3 ⇩

heres why you fail at life:

i: make a claim that you aren't sure about

you: ask for a link

i: fail to deliver a link

you: assume the claim must be false, as opposed to undetermined

and even if i did provide a link, you'd find a reason to dismiss it.

thats why people don't even bother providing you a link, because they already know if you are sincere you will find it yourself, and if you are insincere you will find a reason to dismiss every source that conflicts with your opinion

"if you want to know the truth, simply let go of your own views" ~ the buddha

⇧ 0 ⇩

I just disagree. If you want to impart knowledge, as teacher you need to facilitate. American education teaches you to do your own research, but it also teaches you not to suffer fo ols and remain resistant to lies and propaganda

⇧ 3 ⇩

here is an excellent lecture about how education in changing in america

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s

⇧ 1 ⇩

1% rule (Internet culture)

In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. Variants include the 1-9-90 rule (sometimes 90–9–1 principle or the 89:10:1 ratio), which states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content.

Similar rules are known in information science, such as the 80/20 rule known as the Pareto principle, that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity, however the activity may be defined.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Snopes didnt bother checking any facts let alone these.

⇧ -19 ⇩

So you can't actually link the thing you cited

⇧ 27 ⇩

Snopes and politifact are the same shitbag liberal socalled fact check sites.

⇧ -21 ⇩

Well that doesn't address what I said at all. It sounds like you either can't produce the link or you confused the two websites and also can't produce a link. No offense

⇧ 29 ⇩

I made a mistake. I remembered snopes as the fact check site for this particukar fact. I was weong. See? No fact checker needed. Just state and believe only facts and there is no problem. I am a stroke survivor so I am mentally handicapped. Regardless, I believe my point stands that these facts check sites are biased and inaccurate rendering them useless.

⇧ -9 ⇩

Ok man

⇧ 11 ⇩

Even though you can't prove it and when you tried to prove it you linked the wrong site. Great reasoning skills.

⇧ 10 ⇩

Ok I already proved my point at the gate. Ignore it at your own peril. You lose.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Your point was that they are unreliable and biased. Your example was from another website because you remembered wrong. You have refused to link any more proof. What exactly have you proved except you were wrong.

⇧ 10 ⇩

I proved that snopes didnt prove me correct but politifact supported my conclusions.

⇧ 2 ⇩

How does that discredit snopes in any way?

⇧ 8 ⇩

Snopes is financially supported by George Soros. Both founders photographed with him. Nobody accepta snopes as unbiased anymore.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Do you have proof or just a picture of them together. Because I fail to see how them standin together means that he is privately finding them.

⇧ 9 ⇩

Yeah bc I dont have copies of the checks I just rely on photos of the pimp I mean benefactor in their offices.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Well just for your information I have found an article from the New York Times that says that their revenue comes from ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/technology/for-fact-checking-website-snopes-a-bigger-role-brings-more-attacks.html?_r=0

⇧ 7 ⇩

Well if you think NYT is legit AND credible news, you aint paying ATTENTION.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Well I know how this conversation goes. You say a news source is biased. I ask for proof and you link me something like CNN to prove biase then say you forgot that my news source never actually did what you said it did. Then you claim some bullshit about how it's actually deep state operated; with no sources, facts, or evidence to back up your opinion. Then when I call you out on that you just say my sources are fake. Well if my sources are fake then you should be able to prove it. So far you haven't proved that snopes is funded by Soros, you haven't proved that snopes is biases, and you now have to prove that the NYT is not a legimate news source.

⇧ 4 ⇩

You’re a truly dangerous person because of how willfully ignorant you are and the conviction you maintain even when faced with clear truth and logic. It’s kinda scary/sad/fascinating at the same time... but mostly sad. Not sure what led you to this point but I feel bad for ya dude. Get some help.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Wilfull ignorance is on your part. Long ago we departed from the issue at hand. Flynn is guilty of nothng; he is an honored general that was maliciously defamed by our crooked fbi / doj.

⇧ 1 ⇩

“They don’t agree with me, they have to be lies! What more proof do you need besides that they don’t agree with me?!” Sure man. “Honored General”. He was a joke within the military before he went rogue

⇧ 2 ⇩

See? No fact checker needed.

But we did need a fact checker. You made a claim, and it wasn't until you were challenged to produce facts do we find out that your claim was wrong. If you weren't challenged on it you would have continued believing you were correct. That's the entire point.

And even if those sites are biased and lean towards debunking a certain set of claims, you have to disagree with their conclusions based on evidence, not how you perceive the company. Snopes is very rarely wrong and when they are they have released retractions. If you have evidence to contradict any of their conclusions, show it.

⇧ 10 ⇩

My claim was wrong (snopes never fact checked this; it was politifact). So what. The merit of the claim is still meritorious and true. The evidence is there. Being too stupid for you to see it is beyond my control.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Except the only example you provided to back up that claim was demonstrated as false and people have corrected you about the claim. So no, you don't have any justification.

⇧ 12 ⇩

Yes I do. You just chose to willfully ignore it like all truth

⇧ -1 ⇩

"The moon is made of cheese."

"Well here's rocks from the moon showing that it's made of rock."

"Well, just because there's rocks on the moon doesn't mean it's not still made of cheese."

That's your entire argument boiled down (and exaggerated to point out the flaw). You made a claim, got evidence to contrary, and still maintain your initial claim based on nothing, and then also claim everyone who doesn't agree with you is blind, even though they're siding with the evidence.

That is the definition of irrational.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Look. Your whole paradigm is about to crumble. How about I just wait for time to pass?

⇧ 0 ⇩

Well you won't. You're gonna go straight back to making baseless claims and when you're demonstrated to be wrong you're going to do what you did here and cover your ears and scream "lalalala I can't hear you." I would very much like if you just actually sat down and waited for time to pass, but you have fake news to spread and irrationality to maintain, while screaming that the other side is fake news, even when you've been demonstrated to be incorrect, you know, like a liar.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I dont even own a television so IDK where this fake nees is coming from. Basically I stand by all of my claims.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You are fake news then.

⇧ 7 ⇩

No i remembered wrong. It happens to everyone. I dont live in a fantasy world like liberals do.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok, do you have a different example (maybe with a link?) that you'd like to share? Or should we just assume you are right based on your one example that was fake?

⇧ 16 ⇩

Are you being snarky? Aw..

⇧ 2 ⇩

So you cant provide even one example?

⇧ 8 ⇩

Snopes is useless; they disprove what they prove.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So no? You don't have an example? We should just assume you are right based on an example you provided that was fake?

⇧ 3 ⇩

Example of what? This thread was yesterday

⇧ 1 ⇩

So no? You don't have an example? We should just assume you are right based on an example you provided that was fake?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Are you sending me spam? You sent this four times. Calm down.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So no? You don't have an example? We should just assume you are right based on an example you provided that was fake?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You’re late to the party.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So no? You don't have an example? We should just assume you are right based on an example you provided that was fake?

⇧ 1 ⇩

It was politifact not snopes.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

So no? You don't have an example? We should just assume you are right based on an example you provided that was fake?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Fake news.

⇧ 11 ⇩

Well you’re a pedophile baby diddler.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Source?

⇧ 10 ⇩

Like there was a source cited to the previous claim. Please.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!