Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
Why anyone trusts the "fact-checkers" baffles me.
While it is true that there are fact-checkers who are ostensibly unbiased, the truth remains that these organizations are run by human beings who act according to their own personal convictions. Furthermore, when placed in the context of the broader conversation, fact-checkers invariably come down on one side of the political spectrum or the other. There is no neutral ground.
What fact-checkers really do, is provide lazy people with cheap confidence that their ill-formed, ignorant perspectives are backed by “expert opinions” that are little more than ideological propaganda. I know it sounds like I'm not being nice -- but aren't we passed the point of playing nice with people who continually attack, insult, and degrade anyone who disagrees? They call us names, deplatform, shadow ban, and attempt to ridicule and marginalize anyone who questions the common narrative.
Regardless, both sides claim they have the facts -- and they both have fact-checkers to back them up. But obviously both sides cannot be right. Thus, it would behoove anyone who values commonsense and critical thinking, to exercise discernment and decide for themselves which facts are true, and which facts are mere fiction.
Rather than expounding on the epistemology of truth, this title from a recent fact-checking article gets straight to the point:
"No, food-plant fires aren’t an attempt to create food shortages."
Well that's reassuring, isn't it? Dozens of fires at food processing facilities across the country, sparked in a pattern of consistent intervals, do not mean there is some malicious intent to interrupt food supply chains. Since there is supposedly