Meh. Lot’s of people tend to (almost reflexively) discount stuff that doesn’t support their beliefs. Sometimes this is with justification, sometimes not. Why is this still news to anybody?
If it is true, very few of Soros’s billions are going toward website design.
If you could direct me to the conservative-leaning counterpart of the Dope, I would be happy to drop in for a few debates.
That’s not news. But it’s not really what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is people assigning a political label to things based solely on whether or not they support your beliefs.
If you’re ignorant about Ebola and afraid, then people who aren’t are labeled “liberal”.
If Snopes debunks something you believe then, rather than rethinking that belief or trying to research the issue further, you claim that Snopes is obviously a Soros supported left-wing rag.
Things aren’t just being dismissed. They’re being given a political label.
I supposed you can only go so many times posting an informative “OMG!! Did you see this! Outrage!!” article on Facebook for all your friends to see only to have one of them respond “Sorry, no” along with a link to Snopes resulting in all your friends pointing and laughing at you before you decide you need to get your revenge on this Snopes guy by starting a dirty rumor about him.
Do you know how long it took to get that true/false indicator to work? RED AND GREEN IN THE SAME PIXELS, PEOPLE. All you people do is criticize! God, I’m sorry we don’t have some fancy-schmancy Flash animation of Morgan Freeman telling you the nonsense your grandmother forwarded is bu…
I’ve said too much.
Mental laziness? That is not news either. 
This Board, or Cecil’s column?
A what, now?
I had a similar reaction. Some folks also really like Nickleback, so honestly, it’s not all that surprising.
Both.
It’s probably related to the Laetrile nonsense.
The proper response:
While apple seeds pose minimal threat, apricot and peach pits contain dangerous levels of amygdalin, and the only thing they’ll potentially remedy is living. They are especially dangerous to children, especially if chewed. Those telling you otherwise simply wish to see you dead.
Not any more. And this is actually a topic that I pondered opening as its own thread.
I love urban legends, and read all those Harold Brunvand books about Choking Dobermans and Vanishing Hitchhikers; and Snopes was born of that milieu. But those have dried up; they’re flooded now with 2 things, neither of which are truly urban legends: (1) fake news articles, from sites that are poor imitations of The Onion, that stupid people believe are true; and (2) output from the right wing Obama smear machine – that cottage industry that produces things like “Michelle spent a bazillion dollars of taxpayer money on party dresses.”
In the “wild” I recently encountered a conservative fellow at work that claimed that because Snopes has not debunked what climate change deniers are telling us, that shows that “there is no global warming.” Not sure where he got that since Snopes has made articles that indeed debunk what climate change deniers are telling us.
(In this case it is important to check the link that Snopes makes at the end of the article.)
What I do notice is that even a moderate and tame rebuttal was dismissed with such a ruse, what I concluded is that the coworker fell for a now classic abuse to the Snopes name; like in several chain letters of the past many woo woo or pseudo scientists do tell their readers that they can check Snopes to see how the scare they are talking about was confirmed by them. Of course no link or article exists to confirm that, the chain letterer uses the false “snopes confirmed it” line to help fool the readers.
Heck, some RW Netizens seem to think Wikipedia is LW.
To davidm, and the subject of the OP, I would submit that any time a person invokes the name George Soros it is best to dismiss any of the other words uttered by that person.
Basically, the translation of what they are stating is that they are afraid to look under their bed at night because the boogy-man might grab them, so that’s why they wet the bed. Once you keep that translation in your head regarding their statements, you will find that the frustration you have with them falls away and instead you have sympathy for their struggles with life.
Of course. That’s how Conservapedia was born. I do have to wonder if anyone, outside of Schafly and a small contigent, actually takes Conservapedia seriously though. It’s just too off the wall.
I should add that Wikipedia is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Because it’s factual, it’s labeled left-wing.
Dude, I am right. I always am.
This is at least partly because I refuse to admit that I am wrong. BASIC in this is the inclination to discard facts that would challenge my worldview and/or opinion.
Since you disagree with me, you are wrong. Therefore, your pathetic, deluded “facts” are wrong, too. Therefore, your so called “cites” and “sources” range from “deluded rantings of wrongheaded individuals” to “evil propaganda perpetuated by the One World Conspiracy.”
Therefore, your facts are unfacts, and your cites and sources are bullshit.
Therefore, I win.
Simple, no?