Snopes is gonna Snopes.
But c’mon, really.
This sort of reminds us of the time Bill Clinton said, ‘It depends on what the definition of is, is.’
Way to cover for a terrorist, Snopes. Thanks for proving you’re a ridiculously biased and useless rag that we can continue to write off when frothy-mouthed lefties use you as a source for their silly arguments.
Look at this crap:
Adorable.
Snopes rates "Did a ‘Convicted Terrorist’ Sit on the Board of a BLM Funding Body?" half false because, you know dude, what does the word "terrorist" mean anyway? Like who's to say how words work, you know?
Click through if you think I'm exaggerating. pic.twitter.com/Xb3OoLI3qB
— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) July 20, 2020
You know, man, the word ‘terrorist’ could mean a lot of different things. So what if she was arrested for trying to blow up buildings and stuff, man, it doesn’t make her a terrorist and stuff.
The mental gymnastics these douche-canoes went through to rate this claim as half-false is impressive and not in a good way.
“Fact checkers”
— I❤️AZ (@loreelmel) July 20, 2020
Here’s more of Dan MacGuill’s work. https://t.co/tlfv143jl3
— Tom Chamberlain (@ChamberlainDr) July 20, 2020
Consistent then.
Heh.
“Terrorism is a matter of objective determination.”
No.#Snopes is a terrorist organization.
You can quote me on that. ?— ?FL-Declas-girl1????? Parler:@raniecepiecep (@raniecep) July 20, 2020
Tired: "America need explicit domestic terrorism statutes!"
Wired: "In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions… should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
— Password is Taco (@pw_is_taco1) July 20, 2020
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
– Bill Clinton
— WindowLicker (@YeetTheMarxists) July 20, 2020
Hey, that was our line!
It's a parody site so give them a break
— Andrew Syrios (@rios9000) July 20, 2020
Fair enough.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member