you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]scienceforbid 575 points576 points  (86 children)

If I'm openly disagreeing with someone, after a minute I just go, "Duh! We can Google this!" It adds humor to the situation and implies either could be right.

[–]twopacktuesday 315 points316 points  (68 children)

Google only works if it's non-political. If you find 35 sources to a fact, the other guy will just say "well they are a [liberal/conservative] fake news source.

[–]bobbyjellybean 219 points220 points  (41 children)

So true. My MIL will say this about any source. CNN? Fake news. NPR? Libs. Local news? In a conspiracy with the big fake news. BBC? Definitely fake news because not Amurica. A news channel [from the UK] she has never heard of? Must be liberal because she's never heard of it!

But the "Chicks on the Right" facebook page is totally legitimate and trustworthy.

[–]nick124699 79 points80 points  (25 children)

Had this sitting at a table with my grandmother and father and listening to them talking about how in Australia after they took all these guns away from citizens the crime andbdeath rate went up like 25%. I just didnt even bother, uf theyre going to believe shit from Facebook then theres not any point in trying fix their points of view.

[–]-_Annyeong_- 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Yeah and traffic fatalities went up 130% in Germany after they got rid of the speed limit on the Autobahn!

[–]lesbian__overlord 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Your MIL? I didn't know I was married.

[–]Titi121yippy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

:0 Edit: congrats

[–]UnihornWhale 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m gonna quote an old coworker: “Do they not realize one side has all the smart people?”

[–]CruzaSenpai 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You'll never reach your destination if you stop to throw stones at every barking dog.

Those conversations aren't about facts, they're about what someone believes. You can't convince someone they don't believe something without being unethical at worst and a huge dick at best.

[–]bobbyjellybean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Only part of the reason I'm glad we don't speak to her any more tbh

[–]everyonehatesarobot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ironically those are all liberal news sources according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

I can't seem to find "Chicks on the Right" on there, so I'll defer to your judgement on that one.

[–]bobbyjellybean 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Those were just examples. Anything not from Fox, Breitbart, or Facebook repost pages is for liberal snowflakes.

[–]Turtl3Bear 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that's why I killed her Your Honour.

[–]NortWind 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Have her go to the MediaBiasChart, an attempt to put metrics on bias.

[–]bobbyjellybean 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hmm sounds like something the lamestream media would want her to do!!!

[–]NortWind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's tough out there. If somebody calls "fake news" on an article in a major publication, challenge them to find one incorrect statement that was not promptly and publicly corrected. Major publications know their life depends on having a dependable reputation, and they treat it seriously.

[–]Tookoofox 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I always make a point of citing fox news to conservatives, or playing video.

It still doesn't work, of course, nothing ever does. But if you really want that extra mile, that's how you do it.

[–]bobbyjellybean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing ever works except changing the subject. And sometimes that doesn't work either!

[–]AlexTraner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone on reddit tried this in me this week. I told him off.

[–]subbookkeepper -1 points0 points  (0 children)


I mean which one of those is she wrong about?

[–]gnorty 23 points24 points  (12 children)

They will also be able to google and find 35 sources that agree with their own stance.

[–]FutureWaves 12 points13 points  (10 children)

Or 35 sources that cite that one particular post as justification. I read a byline on Fox News the other day about the largest Christian church operating currently as an underground movement in Iran. I did everything in my power to find a source other than the missionary group that reported it and I couldn't find one source outside of them who was reporting on the issue. I did find hundreds of Christian blogs and news sites that listed this one specific organizations report. Kind of crazy that one post, from a very biased group with no citations or independently verifiable evidence is passed around on the nerd like it's nothing.

[–]gnorty 6 points7 points  (9 children)


case in point. You dismissed most of the the counter evidence (quite rightly) on the grounds it came from the same source, and then dismissed the original source as "very biased".

You may be right, or maybe the original source was in fact absolutely true. You don't know.

People don't tend to put sources that support their opinion under the same degree of scrutiny.

[–]PM_ME_CUTE_SMILES_ 1 point2 points  (6 children)

He is objectively right to have doubts about an information that comes from a single source that has an interest in what they're reporting.

[–]gnorty 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I agree entirely (and even said so in the post you replied to), but that is not the same thing as dismissing it entirely.

example - Trump's whistle blower - a single (and anonymous) source, almost certainly partisan. Literally HUNDREDs of sources using it as the basis for their own story. It is healthy to consider that in conjunction with the story itself, but that does not mean you should automatically write it off as probably bullshit.

[–]gaylordqueen69 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It’s not a matter of “you don’t know” it’s a matter of the source not being trustworthy. There’s no indication where they got the statistics from or how they verified their claims. That’s the issue.

[–]gnorty 0 points1 point  (0 children)


I would imagine that there is more detail in the report than in the reddit post about it. There probably is at least some indication of where they got the information.

just googled and found a very credible, well sourced report right on the front page. Can't be sure if it is the one OP is talking about (or even if the story is the same) but it seems to fit pretty well, and tbf I can't say there is too much wrong with citing it if you wanted to use it to bolster whatever argument it bolsters.

[–]FlyByPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For most issues, one or the other of those groups of sources will have a lot more rigor and credibility.

[–]Empty_Insight 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought MediaBiasFactcheck.com and AllSides.com would help me out with establishing impartiality and credibility (or the opposite), but nah. It's either "Fake News" or some type of hyperbole per those who have less than stellar sources for facts.

Those tools have only been good for personal use in my experience, they never seem to advance an argument. I still would definitely recommend them if you come across a source that you're not familiar with, it can help provide perspective for a source so you can retrieve something of value where there wouldn't have been any originally.

[–]yakusokuN8 18 points19 points  (4 children)

"I only trust this one website I have bookmarked - it's the only one that will report the truth that he's not an American citizen and he should be executed for treason. All those liberal television news shows including Fox News won't report any of this. Also, Obama isn't even his first name; he was born as Barack in Niger and illegally crossed the border as a teenager."

"There are SO many things wrong with that, I barely know where to begin. But, first of all, that's not how you pronounce that country. It's with a long "I", not a short one."

[–]gwidoin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

WAIT! Obama isn't his first name??? My life is a lie!

[–]Narshero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Emphasis should also be on the second syllable, and it's a very soft g; it's more like "nee-ZHER" than... the way you said it there."

[–]PianoManGidley 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's when you don't argue with them and just staple a sign to their forehead reading "BRAIN BROKEN. PLEASE INSTALL REPLACEMENT."

[–]69fatboy420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a political argument, I doubt google would be of any use anyway, unless you need objective data to back up an argument. The person wouldn't even be 100% wrong for saying that, so much unproven speculation is being reported for clicks by desperate "news" outlets.

[–]thehugejackedman 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Never heard a liberal say fake news

[–]GalvanicProcess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They will say "Russian propaganda" instead.

[–]Tookoofox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're arguing about politics, give up. Unless it's with someone of the same party, and the emotional temperature is very, very low.

[–]peiden -1 points0 points  (0 children)


[–]staaamos 45 points46 points  (6 children)

implies either could be right.

When in reality...

[–]Mike81890 11 points12 points  (5 children)


[–]iismitch55 9 points10 points  (4 children)


[–]obvnotlupus 6 points7 points  (3 children)

wrestling's fake

[–]ghrigs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

(reddit copper)

[–]Gamegod018 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wrestling is choreographed. Not fake, but planned. They are actually fighting, but it was already planned out ahead of time

[–]-Reddit_Account- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fake with more steps

[–]TheSilverPotato 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I tend to leave room for error if I can't remember specifics, but my friend ALWAYS tries to tell me I'm wrong so I end up telling her what I know and then saying

TO THE GOOGLE-MOBILE Insert batman transition music

And usually proving myself correct

[–]scienceforbid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As Batman, I love this.

[–]colincita 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good idea! I had this really dumb conversation with my aunt where she said 1986 had been a leap year and I said it hadn’t. I wanted to find a way to google it without being a dick.

[–]plexnewbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It bothers me sometimes when a friend or colleague is firmly holding their position, but won't look it up. I've said before "You have a fucking computer in your pocket -- all the info of the internet is literally at the tips of your fingers. Look it up!" Sometimes it's met with 'Why don't you look it up?' Cause I'm not the one making the claim!

[–]Horny_the_pirate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d smack you If you said that around me

[–]JustinGitelmanMusic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It’s all about the delivery. If you do it wrong, it may come off as being way too eager to argue.

If you say, “honestly, I’m really not sure, at this point it doesn’t even matter but I’m so curious let’s google it!” That might work.

If you say “Let’s just google it”, it comes off as still not trusting them and looking for evidence that will help you win the argument.

[–]Pariston 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why does it matter? If I am wrong I don't care if you need to act like a dick to show me that I am wrong. Hell I might even deserve it if I were acting smug about it.

[–]JustinGitelmanMusic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The point is not about being right. The point is about ways to avoid the person who is wrong being offended by your method and creating a toxic situation.

If someone is being really smug and you want to put them in their place, that’s one thing. But most of the time if you’re having a civil disagreement, it may embarrass a person or put them on high guard if you correct them and it may ruin what could’ve otherwise been a fine conversation or maybe even ruin the beginning of meeting someone who could’ve been a good friend.

Just stick with “Eh, who really cares anyways. This is so irrelevant to anything! Let’s move on!” Most of the time, or at most suggest Google for curiosity’s sake, not as a genuine solution to the argument.

[–]EienShinwa 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is a terrible snarky passive aggressive method that isn't in good faith at all.

[–]scienceforbid -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Duh! We can Google it!