>I don't want to take the time to hunt down real examples
That's fine, but I advise nobody to put any credence behind your claim (snopes is biased) until you are willing and able to provide evidence. Until then, it is safer to continue with the general understanding that snopes is not biased.
You can't just toss shit over the wall and hope for the best, man.
> Until then, it is safer to continue with the general understanding that snopes is not biased.
Are you serious? You think it's safer to consider them not biased?
That's just bizarre. Snopes is a business. Their purpose is to make money by generating clicks. Why in the world would you consider them some kind of unbiased, altruistic truth-seekers? Because they say so?
That's the most unsafe understanding you could have, because it leaves you completely vulnerable to deception. Place your trust in them and you let them have their way with your understanding of the world. You're like putty in their hands.
> You can't just toss shit over the wall and hope for the best, man.
Well, you're nailing it to the wall and calling it truth, man. At least he realizes what he's doing.
That's fine, but I advise nobody to put any credence behind your claim (snopes is biased) until you are willing and able to provide evidence. Until then, it is safer to continue with the general understanding that snopes is not biased.
You can't just toss shit over the wall and hope for the best, man.