this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
534 points (99.3% liked)
science
23466 readers
77 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we have to manually fact check the fact checkers ourselves, it defeats the purpose of them in the first place.
what follows from this statement is that you should be skeptical of everything you read or hear
and yes, you should. does that take more work? yes, it does. especially under a technochristofascist authoritarian government who tells you that anyone considered "expert in their field" is not to be trusted since they advocate for vaccines while we [the government in charge of running the country], for some reason...don't.
does everything about this fucking suck? also yes, it does. what else do we have? between being skeptical of fact-checkers and eliminating fact-checkers (the direction the party is pushing you towards), sorry, i choose fact-check the fact-checkers
The burden of proof and discovery makes the goal of information too complicated for many. The more complex a system, the more it's likely to fail.
And when it's a technochristofascist authoritarian government or it's media allies being the 'fact' checker? We cannot rely on institutions or arbiters as the gate keepers of accuracy.
My solution would be to teach people to be skeptical, how to recognise biases, and how to fact check on their own.
you're talking about critical thinking, which is also under vicious attack by the GOP, but yes, i agree: when the fact-checkers belong to the very people who are spreading not-facts, then what do you have?
does this mean we should dismiss fact-checking as a thing people should do? because--make no mistake-- the end goal here is for you to have the mindset that "whatever dear leader says is absolute truth, and anything else is fake news"
you can literally see this in trump supporters.
This assumes that there is an objective and 100% contextualized truth, which is never the case. Getting a free frogurt seems unquestionably a boon, until you learn it's cursed and contains potassium benzoate.
No
Personally, I think it's annoying that this got down votes. It's short and dismissive, but it's correct. Sometimes it's just not worth longer answers.
Also, some arguments should be dismissed, just ask a judge.