Thoughts on what our discourse police are even trying to do and why they are so stupid.
Thank you for taking on their checkered “facts,” eugyppius.
I coined the terms “fact-choker” and “fact-choking” in response to an el gato malo challenge (probably a couple of years ago now) and have been using them ever since. I encourage everyone to use those terms whenever encountering these MoT Winston Smiths to expose this fraudulent practice and help propagate that understanding through the power of reframing.
Imagine being a paid liar like this, what kind of soot accumulates on a soul whose sole purpose is to ratfuck the brains of millions of naive dummies. Imagine condemning yourself to hell for this lmao
After the first few examples, it became clear to me that "fact checkers" are not checking facts at all. The facts are rarely in dispute. What they are "checking" is the conclusions . . . by trying to rationalize an irrational narrative. In other words, they are the thought police.
I look at all this fact checking nonsense in two ways:
1. It is the establishments counter measure to critical thinkers, like us here, who are calling out the lies, contradictions and propaganda. It is meant to clogg up our minds with a bunch of bologna thrown at us all the time. We are supposed to waste our time dealing with the fact checkers and take our focus off the real target.
2. It is for the average citizen who has no clue what and whom to believe. The fact checkers are a comfortable tool for them to feel good in what to believe. "It has been independently fact checked, I can trust that and don't have to think on my own."
The people who do the fact checking I look at as people who had no real career and never would have made it in the working world. They will do and say yes to anything and anyone, in order to rise to higher positions. It is wanted that these people are incompetent, so they won't be ever a thread to the establishment that put them into place.
There's stupid and then there's Pascal.
"... it’s hard to believe Siggelkow have many readers." I like this little grammatical slip because it suggests that we refer to all idiot "fact-checkers" with a collective noun, "Siggelkow", as in "after work, the Siggelkow of the ARD mainly congregate in vegan fetish clubs to be beaten with Sojawürstchen", or "Siggelkow are rarely invited to parties and seldom procreate" etc.
The idea of fact checking is built on the idea that there is one version of truth.
This ignores the fact that in each of our experiences, truth is personal. We know that we don’t share the idea of truth with our closest family members, let alone some fact checker.
Most people do see through the fact checking scam in theory…but in practicalities, The Truth is peddled very effectively by those in Kontrol, so that other views are suppressed effectively even if we all know that it is probably wrong.
Everything is becoming politicized now, so health and climate are political matters, and we can expect more AI-based efficient and effective suppression of alternate views of The Truth.
I see it in health research, which I do. Where even common views of things like cancer and what causes it are obviously false. But if you present alternate views of The Truth, with studies and backup, you are ruthlessly censored, cancelled and even arrested.
I see Fact Checkers wherein instead of attacking the premise itself, they attack proposed ridiculous conclusions that the article itself does not bring up, then attack those. For instance, during Covid, there was a story about masking I believe where the general purpose of the article was showing masks don't work. The fact check on the article stated that "this led to the idea that possibly mask wearing made people sicker and this is what the fact checking article objected to."
If this were a conversation it would go something like this:
"Masks are not effective in stopping the spread of Covid-19."
"You're wrong, they do not make you sicker."
These fact checkers justify the non awake to stay asleep.
Man Bun is a very tiresome writer -- I couldn't even finish reading this summarized list. Every article is the same bland predigested pablum, "No, you're wrong, the Govt is correct. Listen to the Govt and not your weird friends, you idiot." The credibility of the fact-finders would go a long way if just once, they said, "Actually, the vaccines DO seem dangerous...."
Looking at the selection you present, we can summarise the job of Pascal Siggelkow very well with Matthew 7:3.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
And in English:
Whatever our faction says is true, by definition. We analyse what our opponents say until we find some little detail that could be dubious. If we find it, no matter how tenuous, we can dismiss the entire argument.
Gatomalo recently posted on this guy who went around cutting off man buns.. he didn’t finish the job
“Abysmal idiot” hilarious.
My favorite fact check of all time was a Reuters piece addressing the question “did Joe Biden eulogize a grand wizard of the kkk?” ... this was declared false of course with the Reuters warriors for truth carefully explaining Robert Byrd was not a grand wizard, he was only a exalted cyclops who recruited 150 members of his community to found a new kkk chapter. Ah okay I guess I stand corrected! Had me laughing for days ... since then I carefully read the fact checks which so often depend on technicalities like grand wizard not equal to exalted cyclops to debunk enemy fire. Anything to get that precious “false” designation! The left really exposes its weakness of position with fact checks.
"Ideological masturbation" ha ha ha ... sounds so much more exciting the way you describe it. (Shit I'm so childish I'm ashamed)