Because SCIENCE! Slate says it's time to give up on facts (like they ever had any to begin with)

Well at least Slate is willing to admit it – facts, they don’t need no stinkin’ facts!

This is it. We've finally fallen off the edge of the world and are now on the upside down side. pic.twitter.com/UWsJoYVcE3

— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) February 15, 2017

Oooh, gold star for “Stranger Things” reference.

And really, Slate? Let’s not pretend they’ve ever been known for their factual reporting … weren’t they the ones who wrote about how we shouldn’t treat pedophiles like monsters?

Hrm.

Caution: I just spent 2 minutes scrolling through Salon's feed and lost at least 2 IQ points.

— Heather (@kat_samb) February 15, 2017

You know, we read through their timeline a lot and there is some truth to this. Honestly a couple of our editors have to drink more coffee and take extra vitamins each day just to get through Slate’s feed.

Soo they're gonna do what they've always been doing anyways from the start? ?

— DesertPunkTiger ? ? (@DesertPunkTiger) February 15, 2017

They’d have to use facts first to stop using them, truth.

https://twitter.com/Buss_A_nut/status/831683077336240128

Yup.

"Science"

— The Safest Space (@TheSafestSpace) February 16, 2017

Recommended

'Hello, Mr. French': DataRepublican Turns Her Attention to David French and HOOBOY, YIKES, and HAAAAA

Sam J.

Advertisement

And this is under their science section … SCIENCE.

Oh man.

Uh… pic.twitter.com/3zm862VWYv

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) February 16, 2017

Uh huh.

Someone actually published this: "Stop trying to win arguments with facts. Focus on emotions instead": https://t.co/hSTFjapPx8 via @slate

— Kareim Oliphant (@kareimoli) February 16, 2017

Slate “actually publishes” a lot of things where you think to yourself, “Wow, they actually published that.” In fact, we’re pretty sure they have the market on this type of article … wait, we said fact.

Our bad.