CDC data are disappearing

Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...

lol if you watch zuck's take on it his problem is the fact checkers ended up being biased.

They sometimes are. If you're using a biased source to fact-check, you're just transitively applying that bias.

I do feel like there is a limit to how biased a source can be when it tries to be based in evidence, though. Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers, the climate has warmed enough that you can dump weather records into a spreadsheet and see the effect without needing to measure CO2 at all. That COVID causes disease and a warming climate causes more extreme weather is also rather easy to corroborate. Accepting the obvious is already a good starting point for deciding whether climate policy XYZ is good or not (combined with other basic facts and every party's proposals), but it seems to me that the current striving for unbiasedness leads to giving lunatics equal air time. Any amount of fact checking would at least remove this level of misinformedness

> Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers,

But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Okay? Then you disprove their claims and their bad sources. If they don't want to understand that, there's nothing to do. They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.

Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.

Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?

Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person.

The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choices affect everyone.

>Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?

No I do not:

>They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.

but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach.

I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube comments complaining about Hilary emails (iroinc, isn't it?)

> The people who matter aren't there anyway.

The people who matter are the ones who vote.