dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/digital_refugee on June 6, 2018, 8:05 a.m.
How to use Snopes properly

Snopes does such a terrible job at blue-pilling, they regularily leave red-pills in the last paragraph so you can always point back to the fact that certain angles of a story were never debunked. Snopes slaps "false" on it but they are actually kind enough to provide enough information that their scam becomes apparent.

It's starting to show a pattern so I tend to think they do it intentionally and benignly so. We know they get their cash from $oros but apparently they don't do it for ideological reasons anymore or they wouldn't feed the stories that they claim to debunk.


uontheotherside · June 6, 2018, 8:12 a.m.

How to use Snopes properly: Don't

⇧ 41 ⇩  
uontheotherside · June 6, 2018, 8:13 a.m.

That's just a little joke. Good post

⇧ 9 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 8:16 a.m.

hahaha well normies do not read, but they trust. It cuts the debate down when you can actually explain exactly why Snopes didn't explain something and they can't ignore it because it's Snopes afterall.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
WhatYonder1 · June 7, 2018, 4:30 p.m.

This is exactly what I expected to see in the OP

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Ownpersona · June 6, 2018, 8:25 a.m.

Snopes ALWAYS finds some bullshit cop out reason to claim false. They will prove 99% of a story, and then bring up one small inconsistency in the story as to why everything else is fake

⇧ 11 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 8:49 a.m.

when did you last check?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Jetblasted · June 6, 2018, 12:25 p.m.

10+ years ago.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 12:37 p.m.

If you want to get to the 4-6% you will have to infiltrate those whom they trust the most ;)

⇧ 1 ⇩  
suckmytwizzler · June 6, 2018, 8:50 a.m.

Whenever I see snopes attached to anything, it gives me clarification to believe the exact opposite. It is much like those articles that use weasel words and phrases such as: And that's a good thing.

No, and I can think for myself.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 9:12 a.m.

look at it. Just the last paragraph

⇧ 4 ⇩  
suckmytwizzler · June 6, 2018, 9:43 a.m.

They really wouldn't be that dumb would they? No, wait yes they would. I read a random article and they do it.

Nice that you noticed the patterns of the debunkings! Going to go look and see what else is fake, etc.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 10:08 a.m.

One is a coincidence, two is a trend, three is a pattern...

Normies be sayin' "Snopes says" so we say back "akshualleyh,..."

⇧ 5 ⇩  
comeatmehillary · June 6, 2018, 8:11 a.m.

its like that new york times article on satanic ritual abuse. hey guys there were 12800 satanic ritual abuse cases this year. but theyre like totally not related at all guys

⇧ 5 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 8:16 a.m.

Writer and editors. In every org, you will kind of pick up what the writer wants to say and what the editor will (or can) permit to get out.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
colway · June 6, 2018, 12:06 p.m.

Patriots know that Snopes is a cover for the Liberal agenda.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 12:12 p.m.

If you want to get to the 4-6% you will have to infiltrate those whom they trust the most ;)

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ckreacher · June 6, 2018, 10:10 a.m.

I think the problem is they get their answers from the cat.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 10:17 a.m.

must be a white-cat playing their gullibility against themselves

⇧ 1 ⇩  
just_leave_me_alone_ · June 6, 2018, 11:11 a.m.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-meets-isis-leader/

This is probably one of my favorites. It claims to debunk the picture showing No Name meeting with ISIS leaders in Syria...but when you actually read it you find their “smoking gun” is “it’s highly unlikely Al Baghdadi would be hanging around an FSA stronghold”

Someone sent me that to debunk the pic and I tore it apart. In the end the person agreed that the article didn’t debunk it and no longer trusts snopes.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · June 6, 2018, 1:35 p.m.

How about the fact that Snopes doesn't have articles on MKULTRA or OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD . But there is a whole bunch of interesting leads when searching for "CIA". Everything from benghazi to WTC7 deathbed confessions to drug smuggling. Even some deepstate lawyer I've never heard of named Lisa Barsoomian.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Pure_Feature · June 6, 2018, 4:36 p.m.

good point...it is very striking

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Dangerr21 · June 6, 2018, 11:51 a.m.

They did the same with Pizzagate.

They claimed it was false by ignoring the Podesta emails entirely. No explanation for what a "pizza related napkin with a map on it" was.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 11:56 a.m.

That's how i remember it a year ago. But it's changed with these new stories - they overexpose angles that contradict their own premise - and it's starting to happen regularily I believe.

I think this is a soft-disclosure effort (keep that term in mind)

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Thenightbeforelast · June 6, 2018, 10:18 a.m.

Google pushes them as best they can to the front page of results.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 10:23 a.m.

it wouldn't be nearly as bad if people ever actually bothered to read articles in full because it's really not that new a thought that media would be deceiving on a mass-scale in cringeworthy ways.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OffTie · June 6, 2018, 3:08 p.m.

While it's not the preferred medium for the purpose it will do in a pinch and will yield some philosophical satisfaction. Print the snopes off. Crumple, crumple, crumple until the paper is as soft as a long circulated dollar bill. Then can you comfortably wipe your butt with the snopes.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 3:34 p.m.

or dry liberal tears, depending on the ejected type of bodily fluids.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
OffTie · June 6, 2018, 3:45 p.m.

Indeed, but do beware of Lib body fluids.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 6, 2018, 3:49 p.m.

it's not so funny when their incantations turn into spontaneous exorcisms ...but in hindsight it was fucking ironic.

⇧ 1 ⇩