Fake-news

SNOPES DEBUNKS ITSELF ON OPRAH’S WHITE PEOPLE “JUST HAVE TO DIE” CONTROVERSY

Claims she didn’t mean white people but then admits she meant white people

Snopes, the far-left website that purports to debunk conspiracy theories, has debunked itself by asserting that Oprah Winfrey never said white people need to die to solve racism, before contradicting itself and admitting that Oprah meant white people when she said old people “just have to die” to solve racism.

The controversy arose out of a 2013 BBC interview when Oprah said, “Of course the problem is not solved. As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still… And there’s a whole generation — I said this for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own community in the South — there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”

The context of Oprah’s statement is clear – old white people need to die in order to solve racism. The meaning of what she said cannot be taken any other way.

However, in an article entitled Did Oprah Winfrey Say ‘Old White People Have to Die’?, Snopes ludicrously declares the claim to be false.

They do so by treating the question as if Oprah literally said the words “old white people,” which she did not. As part of its debunking, Snopes quotes my tweet in which I wrote, “Oprah’s solution to racism; Old white people “just have to die”. What a horribly divisive message.”

You’ll notice that I didn’t quote Oprah as saying “old white people,” the quotation marks in that tweet were around the words, “just have to die”. However, the context of Oprah’s statement is clearly aimed at old white people.

“Winfrey’s remarks weren’t specifically targeted at white people,” claims Snopes. “She did not say “All old white people have to die,” or “White older people have to die,” or any other fabricated, race-based version of her actual remarks. In fact, she never uttered the phrase “white people” at all.”

However, in the penultimate paragraph of the article, Snopes admits that Oprah was indeed referring to old white people when she said they “just have to die”.

“It’s valid, given the context, to infer that the majority of the people Winfrey was talking about are white,” Snopes concedes.

So in other words, yes Oprah was talking about white people when she said old people “just have to die”.

The mental gymnastics Snopes is forced to employ to get around this reality is hilarious.

As we have previously documented, Snopes presents itself as a non-partisan outfit, yet has proven itself to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and the left on numerous occasions.

Snopes previously tried to “debunk” claims that the New York Times had colluded with Clinton’s campaign by warning them in advance about potentially negative stories that were about to be published, despite Wikileaks emails proving this to be true on two separate occasions.

As the Daily Caller reported, Kim Lacapria, Snopes’ main political “fact checker,” describes herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She has previously equated Tea Party conservatives with jihadists.

In December 2016, an investigative report revealed how Snopes was accused of using company money to pay for prostitutes.

Snopes’ obvious far-left bias is genuinely disconcerting given that it is being used by the likes of Google and Facebook as a supposedly independent “fact checker” to combat “fake news” online.

This and other examples illustrate how, far from fighting against fake news, Snopes is responsible for circulating it

If anyone is interested, snopes is what Ben used to declare dailywire.com is unreliable

No more infowars either, smells -- they're even worse than Daily Wire.

Ben Reilly wrote:No more infowars either, smells -- they're even worse than Daily Wire.

So basically any source I use is banned or will get me banned apart from sources you approve??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:No more infowars either, smells -- they're even worse than Daily Wire.

So basically any source I use is banned or will get me banned apart from sources you approve??

We'll have a long-overdue discussion of banned sources soon. I'm sure we'll ban fake news sites from the left as well.

It's not about you, it's about the quality of content on this site. I want to minimize untruthful content on this site, simply because I can't live with being a liar.

You and everybody else will have an equal voice in that discussion. But I can tell you right now that a site won't be banned simply because it got something wrong, or published something untrue. It will only be banned if it can be proved that what it published is untrue, and yet it never corrected the record.

Okay?

Ben Reilly wrote:No more infowars either, smells -- they're even worse than Daily Wire.

well what if it's footage of an interview?

what if other sources have reported the same thing?

it's not just about the ''opinions'' of these sites that you question. i get that, i dont even like infowars i think it's garbage but if they are interviewing someone about something which i find interesting then surely i have a right to post it

like that interview with Alveda King for example. It originated from fox news but the link i got was from infowars who also covered it

how is that wrong?

gelico wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:No more infowars either, smells -- they're even worse than Daily Wire.

well what if it's footage of an interview?

what if other sources have reported the same thing?

it's not just about the ''opinions'' of these sites that you question.  i get that, i dont even like infowars i think it's garbage but if they are interviewing someone about something which i find interesting then surely i have a right to post it

like that interview with Alveda King for example.  It originated from fox news but the link i got was from infowars who also covered it

how is that wrong?

I'd really prefer that if it's legit news, it comes from a legit source. I simply won't re-publish lie-peddlers on my own forum, and there's no convincing me otherwise. I'm funny like that.

Ben Reilly wrote:

gelico wrote:

well what if it's footage of an interview?

what if other sources have reported the same thing?

it's not just about the ''opinions'' of these sites that you question.  i get that, i dont even like infowars i think it's garbage but if they are interviewing someone about something which i find interesting then surely i have a right to post it

like that interview with Alveda King for example.  It originated from fox news but the link i got was from infowars who also covered it

how is that wrong?

I'd really prefer that if it's legit news, it comes from a legit source. I simply won't re-publish lie-peddlers on my own forum, and there's no convincing me otherwise. I'm funny like that.

so an interview or discussion between two adults is fine even if not from your special list of acceptable sources

oh well, that's something i suppose

thank you

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So basically any source I use is banned or will get me banned apart from sources you approve??

We'll have a long-overdue discussion of banned sources soon. I'm sure we'll ban fake news sites from the left as well.

It's not about you, it's about the quality of content on this site. I want to minimize untruthful content on this site, simply because I can't live with being a liar.

You and everybody else will have an equal voice in that discussion. But I can tell you right now that a site won't be banned simply because it got something wrong, or published something untrue. It will only be banned if it can be proved that what it published is untrue, and yet it never corrected the record.

Okay?

Bullshit

Ive point out that Quill makes unfounded accusations against trump colluding with Russia without presenting a single shred of evidence

You allow him to repeatedly lie and spread misinformation, because it's anti trump misinformation.

so don't pretend you're suddenly concerned about truth and integrity, and don't think you're fooling anyone besides your cheerleaders, who will no doubt be lining up to tell emperor Ben how lovely his clothes are.

I don't expect you to have any integrity, I never rated you that high, so this RW conservative purge doesn't surprise me, it's par for the course with lefties like you.

And you call me a snowflake

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

We'll have a long-overdue discussion of banned sources soon. I'm sure we'll ban fake news sites from the left as well.

It's not about you, it's about the quality of content on this site. I want to minimize untruthful content on this site, simply because I can't live with being a liar.

You and everybody else will have an equal voice in that discussion. But I can tell you right now that a site won't be banned simply because it got something wrong, or published something untrue. It will only be banned if it can be proved that what it published is untrue, and yet it never corrected the record.

Okay?

Bullshit

Ive point out that Quill makes unfounded accusations against trump colluding with Russia without presenting a single shred of evidence

You allow him to repeatedly lie and spread misinformation, because it's anti trump misinformation.

so don't pretend you're suddenly concerned about truth and integrity, and don't think you're fooling anyone besides your cheerleaders, who will no doubt be lining up to tell emperor Ben how lovely his clothes are.

I don't expect you to have any integrity, I never rated you that high, so this RW conservative purge doesn't surprise me, it's par for the course with lefties like you.

And you call me a snowflake

CBC reported t'other day of a canadian girl attacked on her way to school and had her hijab cut. this was about 9,00am. they had her on a news shoot giving her views, not her identity protected in any way. the whole story was reported, verified as true and on air 45 minutes later. ol' trudeau got in on it calling canadians islamophobes,,,,you know the whole shebang

well, what do you know, torronto police have now said ''the incident described yesterday didn't happen''

i do hope CBC hurry up with their full retraction and apology, otherwise cant use them either

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

We'll have a long-overdue discussion of banned sources soon. I'm sure we'll ban fake news sites from the left as well.

It's not about you, it's about the quality of content on this site. I want to minimize untruthful content on this site, simply because I can't live with being a liar.

You and everybody else will have an equal voice in that discussion. But I can tell you right now that a site won't be banned simply because it got something wrong, or published something untrue. It will only be banned if it can be proved that what it published is untrue, and yet it never corrected the record.

Okay?

Bullshit

Ive point out that Quill makes unfounded accusations against trump colluding with Russia without presenting a single shred of evidence

You allow him to repeatedly lie and spread misinformation, because it's anti trump misinformation.

so don't pretend you're suddenly concerned about truth and integrity, and don't think you're fooling anyone besides your cheerleaders, who will no doubt be lining up to tell emperor Ben how lovely his clothes are.

I don't expect you to have any integrity, I never rated you that high, so this RW conservative purge doesn't surprise me, it's par for the course with lefties like you.

And you call me a snowflake

I have to agree about Quill in general. I'm deeply disappointed in how other Americans on this forum allow him to lie about things that most Americans know are false. He can make the silliest claims and they go unchallenged.

gelico wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Bullshit

Ive point out that Quill makes unfounded accusations against trump colluding with Russia without presenting a single shred of evidence

You allow him to repeatedly lie and spread misinformation, because it's anti trump misinformation.

so don't pretend you're suddenly concerned about truth and integrity, and don't think you're fooling anyone besides your cheerleaders, who will no doubt be lining up to tell emperor Ben how lovely his clothes are.

I don't expect you to have any integrity, I never rated you that high, so this RW conservative purge doesn't surprise me, it's par for the course with lefties like you.

And you call me a snowflake

CBC reported t'other day of a canadian girl attacked on her way to school and had her hijab cut.  this was about 9,00am.  they had her on a news shoot giving her views, not her identity protected in any way.  the whole story was reported, verified as true and on air 45 minutes later.  ol' trudeau got in on it calling canadians islamophobes,,,,you know the whole shebang

well, what do you know, torronto police have now said ''the incident described yesterday didn't happen''

i do hope CBC hurry up with their full retraction and apology, otherwise cant use them either

Well CNN said trump colluded with Russia and then got caught on camera admitting they lied about to boost ratings.

No corrections or retraction as yet

Sooooooooooo........guess that means cnn is out.

Funny thing is that dailywire.com hasn't made any false claims, haven't told a single lie.

But snopes, the left leaning fact checker site (that only fact checks conservative sites - funny old thing) lied about Oprah , didn't correct and yet Ben holds them up as the gold standard.

Lets call it what it is - a conservative purge

If the falsehoods are made at 100 decibels and the corrections are made at 10, the damage is done. Many of these outlets that make "corrections" know exactly what they are doing.

Maddog wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Bullshit

Ive point out that Quill makes unfounded accusations against trump colluding with Russia without presenting a single shred of evidence

You allow him to repeatedly lie and spread misinformation, because it's anti trump misinformation.

so don't pretend you're suddenly concerned about truth and integrity, and don't think you're fooling anyone besides your cheerleaders, who will no doubt be lining up to tell emperor Ben how lovely his clothes are.

I don't expect you to have any integrity, I never rated you that high, so this RW conservative purge doesn't surprise me, it's par for the course with lefties like you.

And you call me a snowflake

I have to agree about Quill in general. I'm deeply disappointed in how other Americans on this forum allow him to lie about things that most Americans know are false.  He can make the silliest claims and they go unchallenged.  

I don't think it's an American thing, the same thing happens in the UK.

People let lies stand all the time about all sorts of things because if tribalism as you pointed out.

If Ben had a spine he would deal with issues on a case by case basis instead of blanket banning news from what he thinks are "shithole" websites.