Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Frozen steak explains how to vet your sources   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Weird, shot  
•       •       •

2335 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2020 at 5:14 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



61 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-19 3:10:49 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-05-19 3:56:15 PM  
I find it amusing that an argument to research something's validity, credibility, and reputation is coming from a product whose claim to be edible meat is debatable at best.
 
2020-05-19 4:03:40 PM  
They aren't wrong.
 
2020-05-19 4:09:59 PM  

mainsail: They aren't wrong.


That's what's so messed up.
 
2020-05-19 4:12:16 PM  
That whole thread is good.
 
2020-05-19 4:12:31 PM  
Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-pri​ma​ry-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question
 
2020-05-19 4:45:15 PM  

Psychopusher: I find it amusing that an argument to research something's validity, credibility, and reputation is coming from a product whose claim to be edible meat is debatable at best.


They're the best we've got these days.
 
2020-05-19 5:02:24 PM  
That's not steak.

Still good advice, tho.
 
2020-05-19 5:07:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question


Two problems with your post

1) It's well over 280 characters
2) You aren't chopped and formed emulsified meat product that is comprised of beef trimmings left over after an animal is slaughtered and all of the primary cuts, such as tenderloin, filet, and rib eye, are removed
 
2020-05-19 5:17:10 PM  
I don't know who you heretics are but Steak-umms is not only meat it is life.
 
2020-05-19 5:17:45 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: That's not steak.

Still good advice, tho.


Yeah, I would go with "meat* sheet"...
 
2020-05-19 5:20:51 PM  
know the difference between:

1. Information

2. Knowledge

3. Applied Knowledge

4. Expertise

The news person reading to you probably only has information, some people on the show might have knowledge and even fewer will have applied knowledge. You'll never see an actual expert on cable news.

I hope this helps
 
2020-05-19 5:20:53 PM  
well done
 
2020-05-19 5:22:50 PM  

Psychopusher: I find it amusing that an argument to research something's validity, credibility, and reputation is coming from a product whose claim to be edible meat is debatable at best.


Strawmen are amusing.

mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question


Now pare that down to 280 characters so you can tweet it out
 
2020-05-19 5:25:39 PM  
Real talk from flat meat.
 
2020-05-19 5:25:50 PM  

Nogrhi: Farking Clown Shoes: That's not steak.

Still good advice, tho.

Yeah, I would go with "meat* sheet"...


More of a quilt... if your quilt contains mucus and tendons
 
2020-05-19 5:26:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-19 5:27:23 PM  

mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question


Sir, you lack the credibility of this sliced steak Twitter account.  I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting misinformation.
 
2020-05-19 5:29:39 PM  
I only trust 3D printed meats.

Animal meats have animal bias. The source of non 3D printed meats is animals.
 
2020-05-19 5:31:46 PM  

JolobinSmokin: know the difference between:

1. Information

2. Knowledge

3. Applied Knowledge

4. Expertise

The news person reading to you probably only has information, some people on the show might have knowledge and even fewer will have applied knowledge. You'll never see an actual expert on cable FOX news.

I hope this helps


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-19 5:37:13 PM  
Meat flavored substance says what?
 
2020-05-19 5:38:26 PM  
Does this mean the Fox News audience are vegans?


At least, the non brain-dead ones.
 
2020-05-19 5:41:32 PM  

Weatherkiss: [Fark user image image 850x637]


Man, sassy brands are so three years ago. Depressed caustic brands were two years ago, and painfully earnest brands are painfully 2019. So far 2020 is struggling to find its fake brand voice, but when the rona wears off my money is on horny brands taking over.
 
2020-05-19 5:43:31 PM  

pkjun: Weatherkiss: [Fark user image image 850x637]

Man, sassy brands are so three years ago. Depressed caustic brands were two years ago, and painfully earnest brands are painfully 2019. So far 2020 is struggling to find its fake brand voice, but when the rona wears off my money is on horny brands taking over.


Naw, we had horny brands in 2016.  Furries were, as usual, the thought leaders on this.
 
2020-05-19 5:46:51 PM  

mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question


While yes, your list is better, I'd be satisfied if the general public followed their list. Right now, the vast majority of Americans figure hearing it on Facebook makes it true.

I do have to disagree with you that bias isn't important. Biased people will focus on where their beliefs sound correct and completely ignore where they are proven to be bat-shiat crazy. Audience is important because many news agencies play to biased audiences and thus distort their results in exchange for ratings. How controversial something is can affect the quality of the result by attracting trolls and conspiracy theorists. People dismiss good science because they follow the politics on the other side of the issue.
 
2020-05-19 5:50:02 PM  
Considering the primary source of information for the majority of the consumers of Steak-umm, this is an extremely controversial position to take.
 
2020-05-19 5:51:54 PM  
Haven't had one in decades, but man when I was a kid those things with a slice of American "cheese" on a hamberder bun! Soooo good! I was also the weird kid who loved sloppy joes and cafeteria pizza.
 
2020-05-19 5:54:56 PM  
i'm enjoying how angry frozen sheets of very thin steak are making right wingers and libertarians (astrology for men) and other various assorted edge lords.
 
2020-05-19 6:14:16 PM  

lostcat: Considering the primary source of information for the majority of the consumers of Steak-umm, this is an extremely controversial position to take.


I assume their primary source of information is Steak-umm's Twitter account.

Full disclosure: I don't know anyone who eats Steak-umms.
 
2020-05-19 6:16:18 PM  

Weatherkiss: [Fark user image 850x637]


Such savagery. Ouch.
 
2020-05-19 6:24:35 PM  
I really wish I could bring myself to support reasonable discourse on twitter, but I'm not farking eating a steak-umm for that.
 
2020-05-19 6:29:26 PM  
Steak-umms are just thinly sliced tongue. Fitting it has an opinion.
 
2020-05-19 6:42:15 PM  

mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question


It seems like you have the requisite knowledge and ability to vet your sources properly before spouting misinformation. So...

... why is it that you typically don't?
 
2020-05-19 6:47:56 PM  

pkjun: Weatherkiss: [Fark user image image 850x637]

Man, sassy brands are so three years ago. Depressed caustic brands were two years ago, and painfully earnest brands are painfully 2019. So far 2020 is struggling to find its fake brand voice, but when the rona wears off my money is on horny brands taking over.


MoonPie is gonna own horny brands.
 
2020-05-19 7:24:04 PM  

emtwo: mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question

It seems like you have the requisite knowledge and ability to vet your sources properly before spouting misinformation. So...

... why is it that you typically don't?


I don't?
 
2020-05-19 7:25:21 PM  

mainsail: They aren't wrong.


I wonder what the number of people who are capable and willing to do those things, but needed a reminder from a processed meat brand in order to do them is.
 
2020-05-19 7:26:53 PM  
This is peak 2020 right here.
 
2020-05-19 7:29:02 PM  

ElPrimitivo: Nogrhi: Farking Clown Shoes: That's not steak.

Still good advice, tho.

Yeah, I would go with "meat* sheet"...

More of a quilt... if your quilt contains mucus and tendons


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-19 7:33:55 PM  

mrshowrules: emtwo: mrshowrules: Not a good list and also quite redundant.  First, bias is not an really an important issue.   Neither is the audience or whether or not how controversial it is.  Good reporting can be biased, controversial and have a stupid audience.

I could come up with a better list:

1) make sure you are looking at the actual source of the reporting (not a modified, misquoted or taken out of full  context)
2) what is the nature of the information.  News article/journalist, scientist, opinion piece, political propaganda, satire, blog post, organizational/corporate press release,  etc.. etc...  and consider what the consequence are if the source is show to be inaccurate
3) consider how the information provided is supported by other sources and primary sources (https://www.lib.uci.edu/examples-prim​ary-sources), videos and thing you have directly observed yourself.  If it conflicts with these or conflicts with itself or uses false logic, it is not trustworthy.
4) Use other sources to research the reputation, bias, motivation and historical accuracy of the source in question

It seems like you have the requisite knowledge and ability to vet your sources properly before spouting misinformation. So...

... why is it that you typically don't?

I don't?


You often do, but not always, no.
 
2020-05-19 7:37:30 PM  

mrshowrules: I don't?


While it's typically frowned upon to drag up previous discussions in a current thread, you did directly ask for it. In the last week I've seen you claim that ProPublica is one of the worst, most biased news sources in the country, and that Center for American Progress is one of the worst, most biased rightwing thinktanks in the country. Both claims demonstrate a complete failure or a lapse in critically evaluating sources.
 
2020-05-19 7:39:14 PM  

JolobinSmokin: The news person reading to you probably only has information, some people on the show might have knowledge and even fewer will have applied knowledge. You'll never see an actual expert on cable news.


You do, but only when the topic is something legal. Most cable news pundits seem to have backgrounds in law so that's the one subject they can talk about with some authority.

But almost never when it's a science story. They'll try to find someone and if they don't, they use the journalist covering the topic as the expert, which they are not.
 
2020-05-19 7:42:05 PM  
I always cutnpaste this handy guide where appropriate:

The rule of thumb for accuracy of reporting is the more sources that exist, the more free the press, the more accurate the news. Generally speaking. Events that have numerous independent accounts have more accurate news. Events that have one (or very few) do not.

How to tell what is true or not? That requires an essay by itself. It's far more complicated than just looking at the ideological framework that produced it. Look for the following:

- Corroboration: Multiple independent sources, several non-related pieces of evidence that agree on the same order of events in the same manner without collaboration or collusion, and without vagueness or uncertainty. Details matter, and specifics are preferable over generalities.

- Primary sources: Evidence citing or coming from witness or documentation from the actual event. Not second hand, hearsay, rumor or phone tagging.

- Credibility: The nature and background of the evidence and its reliability. Does the source have a history of dubious trustworthiness or are they reputable and respectable in their communities? A newspaper is much stronger than a blog. A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is more credible than a youtube conspiracy theorist.

- Authorship: Who created the evidence? If there is no official name or by-line, it is inadmissible. Memes and image macros are not evidence. They're not even facts most of the time.

This is all pretty standard criteria in scholarship and sourcing claims. Yes, this requires a fair deal more effort than just "news I like true, news I hate fake", but if it's truth you're really looking for, then then you need to up your standards. Don't take any single source at face value. CORROBORATE. And don't stop digging. Reality, like freedom, is an occupied space that needs to be reoccupied every day.
 
2020-05-19 7:58:53 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: lostcat: Considering the primary source of information for the majority of the consumers of Steak-umm, this is an extremely controversial position to take.

I assume their primary source of information is Steak-umm's Twitter account.

Full disclosure: I don't know anyone who eats Steak-umms.


I remember my mom making some one time, when I was a kid. I saw them in the freezer and got so excited, because I assumed they would be like eating a Philly cheesesteak, and we usually ate vegetarian meals at home. I was sorely disappointed, and the fact that we never had them again tells me I wasn't the only one.
 
2020-05-19 8:13:58 PM  
Steak-umms are American shawarma.
 
2020-05-19 9:01:13 PM  

emtwo: mrshowrules: I don't?

While it's typically frowned upon to drag up previous discussions in a current thread, you did directly ask for it. In the last week I've seen you claim that ProPublica is one of the worst, most biased news sources in the country, and that Center for American Progress is one of the worst, most biased rightwing thinktanks in the country. Both claims demonstrate a complete failure or a lapse in critically evaluating sources.


That was a mistake.  I corrected myself in the same thread.  I simply confused the name of a what is apparently a good news source with a bogus one.

https://www.fark.com/comments/1081834​4​/Guess-theres-a-helluva-ProPublica-sto​ry-about-to-drop-that-makes-West-Virgi​nian-governor-look-like-heswellthe-gov​ernor-of-West-Virginia-Thats-a-pretty-​damnable-title-next-to-Hitlers-mustach​e-groomer-Sean-Hannitys-fluffer#new
 
2020-05-19 9:03:31 PM  

emtwo: mrshowrules: I don't?

While it's typically frowned upon to drag up previous discussions in a current thread, you did directly ask for it. In the last week I've seen you claim that ProPublica is one of the worst, most biased news sources in the country, and that Center for American Progress is one of the worst, most biased rightwing thinktanks in the country. Both claims demonstrate a complete failure or a lapse in critically evaluating sources.


Also.  I've never commented on Center for American Progress.
 
2020-05-19 9:05:24 PM  

Discordulator: You often do, but not always, no.


Being confused and making dumb mistakes is not the same as lacking an intent to think about things critically.
 
2020-05-19 9:05:29 PM  

sp1dey73: Haven't had one in decades, but man when I was a kid those things with a slice of American "cheese" on a hamberder bun! Soooo good! I was also the weird kid who loved sloppy joes and cafeteria pizza.


Guess I'm weird too, which should come as no surprise.  Been a long time since I had Steak-Umms, but I like them and wouldn't mind having some again.

I get that it's fashionable to sneer at them - they're reasonably low cost, they're mass market, and they're nourishing and tasty enough, but they're not trendy or really *great*, and they're certainly not health food, but they could be worse.  And they come from one or two generations back.  So they're the 'OK Boomer' of convenience food.

And when I'm busy working and want something I can grab in a hurry that's hot and a notch better than junk food, frying up a couple Steak-Umms on a bun hits the spot.  If people want to trash talk them, fine by me.  They don't have to eat them.
 
2020-05-19 9:12:57 PM  
I thought it was properly written

Steak?  Umm.....
 
2020-05-19 9:38:43 PM  

mrshowrules: emtwo: mrshowrules: I don't?

While it's typically frowned upon to drag up previous discussions in a current thread, you did directly ask for it. In the last week I've seen you claim that ProPublica is one of the worst, most biased news sources in the country, and that Center for American Progress is one of the worst, most biased rightwing thinktanks in the country. Both claims demonstrate a complete failure or a lapse in critically evaluating sources.

Also.  I've never commented on Center for American Progress.


Well perhaps I am confusing you for someone else. For that, I apologize. Now it is my turn to eat crow!
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.