Oldie but goodie. I guess.
I understand the JBS is still around – but, post-Cold-War, who is their bete noir now? Islamic Jihadists?
I wonder if that’s a matter of human nature, which can’t change, or culture, which can.
Or, Eliminationists. (Meaning, those who earnestly want their opponents . . . eliminated. Almost entirely RW, in American history. Haven’t heard of any LW eliminationists 'round here since the '70s; unless you count environmentalists so extreme they wish the whole human race including themselves would die, and those are vanishingly rare.)
Even though at least half the people on welfare are white, and it’s always been that way, AFAIK.
Example?
Well yes I think it was mostly referring to whites, but I’d guess there are a lot more poor, white Republican supporters than poor, black Republican supporters. It was a more general point anyway - that a lot of people don’t just ignore facts, they rebel against them.
I think it’s a bit of both. But I hope there is more actual thinking going on than there was, say, 500 years ago, which suggests it’s mostly culture that will hopefully be erased eventually.
Those are interesting claims; can you supply any such e-mails that so referenced Snopes? (Or your evidence that “many do not check” Snopes thereafter?)
At least half of the crazy right-wing e-mails I get from my Grandfather make claims of veracity referencing snopes.com. Here is one I got 7 days ago:
Of course if you actually go to Snopes the e-mail is plainly labeled FALSE (the bill existed, but nobody supported it other than it’s creator - certainly not Obama or Pelosi). I can easily post more if you want to read more crazy. 
Here’s another snippet from one I got about a month ago (which is basically jsut a repackaging of one from 2008):
Of course, at Snopes, it is also marked as FALSE.
I could if I had the time to go check my emails from my mom the last five years. While I have them archived, it would be a bit tedious looking for those.
I can just tell you the GIGO had it right. I think that it was a bit more pronounced about 1-3 years ago. They don’t seem to do it as much the last year. But it was certainly true a few years ago.
Yeah, I overstated the prevalence. I currently have around 1,000 e-mails archived from him and only 21 have the word “snopes” in them. So they still exist, but not as much as they used to (I clear out the archive every year or so).
I despair of humanity when I read emails like these.
Yep, and thanks for the support guys, I see that **TOWP **still can not believe that perfectly good advise can be turned into a lie depending on the context.
“If you have doubt about this message, check it out at SNOPES” is indeed a double lie when used in that way, it actually dulls a good number of people into believing the maker of the note is telling the truth. It is just the same as Lord Monckton and many climate change deniers when they say at the end of their presentations that “you should not just trust me, check the evidence”; sadly, many do not.
For that matter, it’s akin to holocaust deniers who throw in pleas to “just show me the evidence, just one little bit of proof”, suggesting that they are indeed open to such and this reasonable request has consistently been left unsatisfied. Of course, what they really want is to plant the suggestion that no real proof exists so even if the reader does goes looking, he has a preconceived notion that all holocaust documentation is fake.
The funny thing is that this has been an accusation since the very early days of snopes (early 90’s). So much so that the “old regulars” had a special forum (the pool… had to click on a period in one part of the welcome page IIRC) at the time and referred to themselves as the SLC (Secret Liberal Cabal). The joke was that we were far from a “cut from one cloth” group of people. I was one of the old regulars, and one of the first members of the SLC… and I’m a conservative from the mid-west.
The forum still exists in some form but is now just a general MPSIMS type of of forum.
Much of what we claim to know about the Holocaust comes from the Nuremberg trials . . . The senior generals of the Allied powers must have been either in on the hoax or duped by it . . . I can’t decide which makes less sense.
The “perfectly good advise” isn’t a lie; it’s what folks given such an e-mail should do.
It’s indeed sad that many do not, but what makes it sad is that “you should not just trust me, check the evidence” is true. I merely conclude that more people should follow Jas09’s example instead of disregarding the “perfectly good advise”.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
I advise we use the noun “advice” from now on.