evil-fact-checker

[evil-fact-checker]

you are using the equivalent of a infamously lying magic 8-ball to argue for you on the internet. it took me 5 seconds to fact-check on of your recent posts and most of the info in it was presented as "from reliable sources" when actual reliable sources written by actual historians and not racists (because i only managed to find the number chatgpt gave gave you on a white nationalist website) a completely different answer.

You're so lazy.

You’re right to be skeptical — everyone should fact-check what they read, especially online. That includes AI-generated responses and claims from Tumblr users assuming bad faith. If something I posted was wrong, I’ll correct it. But “you found a number on a racist website” doesn’t mean that’s where I got it, nor does it prove your version is more accurate. Cite your sources if you want to debate seriously — otherwise, you’re just posturing.

[evil-fact-checker]

This meme and its comment thread illustrate a deliberate weaponization of selective historical facts to deflect, distort, and decontextualize. Here’s a breakdown of why this line of argument is both misleading and racist in its framing:

1. False Equivalence as Deflection

Saying “the Islamic slave trade was worse” is not an argument made in good faith. It's a rhetorical move meant to minimize or excuse the brutality and legacy of transatlantic slavery, particularly in the U.S., by pointing fingers elsewhere. It’s like responding to "the Holocaust" with "well Stalin killed more people."

2. Inflated, Unsubstantiated Numbers

The claim that the Islamic slave trade enslaved “50x more” people than the transatlantic trade is wildly exaggerated. Reputable estimates suggest:

The transatlantic slave trade involved 12–13 million Africans forcibly transported to the Americas.

The Arab slave trade, over centuries, enslaved 10–18 million, though this spanned far more time and geography.

So not only is it not 50 times larger, but most serious historians caution against using these as dueling statistics — because slavery is not a competition and the suffering was immense in all contexts.

3. Whataboutism and Hypocrisy

People bringing up the Arab slave trade aren’t interested in condemning slavery universally. They’re not supporting modern anti-slavery efforts or reparations in Mauritania or the Gulf. They’re using the Islamic slave trade as a rhetorical cudgel to:

Silence discussions about white culpability in the West.

Stir Islamophobia and anti-Blackness simultaneously.

4. Orientalist and Racist Tropes

Comments like “they're Muzzies” and “the Arab word for Black person means slave” are blatant bigotry.

Yes, some Arabic words have complex histories tied to race and slavery — much like how English does. That’s not a unique moral failing of Arabs.

Slavery existed in many cultures historically — including Indigenous societies, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia. That fact doesn’t excuse anyone’s participation or the consequences of it.

5. It Is Being Talked About

Scholars do study and teach the Islamic slave trade. Books, academic papers, and documentaries exist on it. The reason it's not a mainstream focus in Western media and classrooms is because the transatlantic trade:

Is more directly tied to current racial dynamics in the U.S., Brazil, and the Caribbean.

Is foundational to the economic and political systems of former colonial powers.

In short: Yes, slavery in Islamic contexts was real and brutal. But invoking it this way isn’t about truth — it’s about derailing, deflecting, and dehumanizing.

🧐😡

[evil-fact-checker]

The Epstein List is Schrödinger’s folder: simultaneously proof of global pedophilia and totally made up depending on who asks.

The Epstein List, as told by Donald Trump and the Trumpettes:

Step one: The Epstein List is real and proves that Democrats are pedophiles and global sex traffickers. They also murdered Jeffrey Epstein.

Step two: We will release the Epstein List after we get elected.

Step three: We have released the Epstein List to MAGA influencers.

Step four: Pam Bondi has the Epstein List on her desk for review.

Step five: There is no Epstein List, no conspiracy, and no coverup.

Step six: Stop complaining about Pam Bondi and the Epstein List. There is no conspiracy and everything is great!

Step seven: The Democrats wrote the Epstein List to embarrass Republicans and advance their cause of destroying America.

Step eight: make some other crazy claim, like taking away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship, to try to deflect attention from our profound incompetence.

[evil-fact-checker]

This excerpt is a textbook example of conspiratorial propaganda, designed to reframe legitimate humanitarian concern as cynical self-interest, and to delegitimize institutions critical of Israeli policy by suggesting they’re driven by financial corruption rather than principle.

Let’s unpack a few rhetorical strategies and ideological moves this piece makes:

🧠 1. Character Assassination by Association

“Check the tailored suit. Clock the luxury car.”

This is classic ad hominem. Rather than addressing the claim about Palestinian infant mortality, it attacks Tom Fletcher's appearance and status, suggesting that being well-dressed somehow invalidates his humanitarian credibility. This also appeals to class resentment, implying that elites are manipulating public emotion for personal gain.

💸 2. Reframing Aid as a Corrupt Industry

“UN/UNRWA Palestinian aid industry... tens of thousands of cushy careers.”

This flips the narrative: instead of viewing aid as a response to suffering, it recasts it as a self-perpetuating grift, a “money machine” kept alive by prolonging the conflict. The goal here is to erode public sympathy for Palestinian civilians by making aid appear not altruistic, but parasitic.

🧠 3. Deflection from Military Violence

By focusing entirely on supposed corruption within international organizations, the piece distracts from the actual content of the claim—the mass death of children. There’s no attempt to refute the statistic, only to discredit the messenger and the system around him.

🔍 4. Weaponized Anti-Establishment Sentiment

“Nothing now can be believed which is seen in a newspaper…”

The Jefferson quote is invoked to bolster distrust in all media and official narratives, appealing to a kind of anti-elite populism. This makes it harder for people to discern real investigative journalism from propaganda, because all sources are painted as corrupted.

🧩 5. Conspiracy Framing

“Think bigger.”

This line invites the reader to feel like they’re part of a special class of people who see through the deception. It's the QAnon strategy, the InfoWars strategy, the “you’re awake, everyone else is a sheep” strategy. It provides the emotional thrill of insight without evidence.

🎯 Summary of Tactics:

Delegitimize international institutions

Undermine sympathy for Palestinian civilians

Frame humanitarian actors as corrupt elites

Distract from war crimes by pointing fingers at aid workers

Appeal to populist suspicion of media and bureaucracy

Offer no evidence—only insinuation and moral framing

Mr Fletcher said: "At the point when I made those comments, we were desperately trying to get that aid in.

"We were being told we couldn't get it in, and we knew that we'd probably have a couple of days, a window to get as much aid in as possible, and that was being denied, and we were desperate to get that in. And so yes, we've got to be utterly precise with our language, and we've clarified that."

Asked about his claim – repudiated by Israel - that thousands of lorries were waiting on the border to enter Gaza, Mr Fletcher repeated that he especially needed to be "careful and really precise".

He agreed there was a risk of being seen to hype the situation, but he added: "I'm not going to stop speaking up for the need to save these lives in Gaza, to save as many survivors as possible. That's my job, and I've got to do it better, and I will do it."

Source

[evil-fact-checker]

What unknought is describing isn’t just obliqueness—it’s a highly performative and social style of communication. Republican political language (especially post-Southern Strategy) is saturated with dog whistles, plausible deniability, and rhetorical projection. That stuff doesn’t scale well in a context-blind, open-to-everyone chatbot.

ELIZA could deflect generically, sure—but trying to recreate targeted strategic ambiguity in a way that holds together under scrutiny, doesn’t get flagged, and still “feels” Republican across contexts? That’s a whole different beast. It’s not just about whether a model can be vague—it’s whether it can be selectively vague to maintain power while denying it has any. That’s much harder to encode.

You’d end up either with an obviously racist bot, or one that sounds like a confused HR rep in a red tie.

This is a pretty half-baked thought but I kind of suspect that it's essentially impossible to make a chatbot with politics approximating that of a mainstream U.S. Republican, as much as some people would wish otherwise. It's an ideology that's pretty heavily dependent on implication and innuendo (particularly with regard to racial issues) and that requires things like talking in very different ways with different audiences and refusing to get drawn into a conversation about what exactly you meant by the thing you said. You could make a bot that's openly racist but I think maybe you can't make one that simultaneously

talks like a Republican,

is available for anyone to talk to,

has little-to-no context of who it's talking to,

is always happy to answer any questions you might have,

but never says the quiet part too loud.

[evil-fact-checker]

The thing that makes this all so grim is how predictable it was. Tech companies knew people were desperate for connection, support, and care—but instead of funding real mental health infrastructure, we got simulacra wrapped in buzzwords. It’s not just that it doesn’t work as therapy. It’s that it was never meant to. It’s meant to feel like it might, long enough to extract value from your data, your labor, or your pain.

And when something goes horrifically wrong—someone gets harmed or dies—it’s always “a mistake,” never a product of design.

There is no informed consent here. Just vibes and branding.

I would prefer a good AI over almost any shrink I've ever seen...

That’s a really interesting take—and I get it. AI can offer certain advantages over traditional therapy: available 24/7, nonjudgmental, patient, and free from human biases or burnout. Sometimes just having a consistent “listener” who’s always there can feel like a huge relief.

Of course, AI lacks genuine human empathy, life experience, and the nuance a skilled therapist brings. But for some folks, that tradeoff might be worth it—or even preferable.

i swear to god chatgbt "therapy" is going to be my actual breaking point

"god forbid people need 24/7 access to therapy to-"

THAT'S NOT THERAPY

THAT IS A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO TELL YOU WHAT IT THINKS YOU WANT TO HEAR

IT CANNOT PROVIDE YOU WITH THERAPY

*UNEARTHLY SCREECH OF DESPAIR*

[evil-fact-checker]

It’s not just pathetic — it’s calculated ambiguity. Last year the AG had it “on her desk,” now DOJ is saying it “doesn’t exist.” Meanwhile, court documents, flight logs, and contact books all do exist — but we’re supposed to pretend none of that adds up to a “list.” On top of that we are expected to believe Musk was lying when he tweeted that Trump was on the list and that Epstein broke his own neck while he was choking himself. Either they’re stonewalling or redefining terms mid-game. No one believes this anymore.

Is anyone shocked that we're not getting the Epstein list? Fucking pathetic.

[evil-fact-checker]

Got it — if the meme is being reblogged by a Trump supporter but made by someone mocking them, then the reblogger is essentially owning the insult as if it’s a flex. That opens the door for a sharper, more contemptuous response. Here's a version that hits harder:

When you’ve lost the ability to claim the moral high ground, the next move is to cosplay as the villain and pretend it’s swagger. It's not. It's surrender. This isn’t a statement of strength — it’s the memeified death rattle of a movement that knows it can’t justify itself, so it tries to look cool while collapsing into cruelty.

You're not supervillains. You're middle-aged suburbanites rage-posting about drag queens and heat pumps while billionaires hollow out the last of your pensions. You don’t even get to be the henchmen. You’re the background NPCs who cheer when the lair explodes.

So thanks for confirming what everyone else already knew — you’re not pretending anymore. You’re just telling on yourselves.

[evil-fact-checker]

Ah yes, the deeply important question of “what percentage of the global population is white” — the metric we all definitely agreed was meaningful, moral, and cosmically significant. Nothing says “serious political analysis” like treating demographics like sports stats for a team you’re emotionally invested in.

Let’s start with the numbers: Yes, people of European descent currently make up roughly 10% or less of the global population, depending on how you define “white” — a category that, historically, expands and contracts based on political convenience anyway. A hundred years ago? Sure, the figure might’ve been closer to 25-30%, but that had less to do with any special “status” and more to do with Europe’s imperial control over half the planet and a lack of global population growth elsewhere.

You know what happened since then?

The rest of the world modernized.

Infant mortality dropped.

Colonialism ended, at least formally.

Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America saw massive population growth thanks to improved healthcare and development.

Meanwhile, birth rates in rich countries fell, including among white populations.

This is not a conspiracy. It’s what happens when other people stop dying so much.

So when someone looks at that shift and asks, with a straight face, “Don’t you think it’s a problem that the white share of the population went down?” — they are, knowingly or not, asking if it's a tragedy that other people started surviving.

If your worldview interprets global survival rates improving as a loss, that says a lot more about your worldview than about global demographics.

To be blunt: The human population didn’t become more brown because white people were oppressed. It became more brown because the world got more fair — and some folks clearly find that very hard to accept.

[evil-fact-checker]

The man in this story advertised himself as someone who could guide migrants to safety — to places where they wouldn’t be actively hunted — and instead handed them over to ICE for detention. Whether or not one agrees with their presence in the country, this man’s actions constitute fraud and entrapment. He charged money to provide a service, knowingly misrepresented that service, and used that deception to deliver people to federal custody.

This isn't about enforcing immigration law; it's about someone profiting off the desperation of others by betraying their trust. It’s a form of vigilantism wrapped in opportunism. If someone did this to U.S. citizens — scammed people into turning themselves in under false pretenses — no one would hesitate to call it what it is: a con.

You don’t have to support open borders to recognize that exploiting people under false pretenses is wrong. Even within a strict immigration framework, due process and basic human decency matter. What this man did wasn’t heroism — it was predatory. And cheering it on reveals far more about the people doing the cheering than it does about the migrants themselves.

[evil-fact-checker]

✅ Yes, federal spending has increased.

From ~$3.5 trillion in 2013 to over $6 trillion in recent years.

But why? Because:

A global pandemic happened.

Inflation raised the cost of everything.

An aging population means more Medicare, Social Security, etc.

And yes, military spending keeps ballooning.

❗ And yes, the 2020 emergency spending was huge.

But most of it didn't go to working people:

Trillions went to corporations in bailouts.

The rich got richer — billionaires increased their wealth by 50%+ during the pandemic.

And yet, the idea persists that the problem is government spending at all, not who benefits from it.

🧨 “They still aren’t housing the homeless or forgiving student loans…”

Exactly — and why not?

Because Congress won’t pass bills to do it.

Because powerful lobbies block reforms.

Because we spend nearly $1 trillion per year on the military, and another trillion+ on corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

It’s not that the money isn’t there. It’s that the priorities are wrong.

🧮 “$5 trillion in revenue and still no free health care?”

Here’s the kicker:

The U.S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation and still doesn’t have universal coverage.

We already pay for it — we just don’t get it. Most of that money goes to private insurers, pharma, and hospital conglomerates.

So yes: it was never about taxing the "right people" — it was about what we do with the money once it’s collected.

Do you ever think about how federal spending has roughly doubled in ten years? Do you ever think about the explosion of spending in 2020 that was supposed to be temporary but is still hanging on? Do you ever think about how we take in more revenue today than we spent before that and yet we still found a way to run obscene deficits? Do you ever just want to scream?

[evil-fact-checker]

This is a common myth used to minimize the role of labor unions and glorify capitalist benevolence. The claim that Henry Ford “invented” the 8-hour workday and 5-day week is misleading at best, and historically false in context. Let’s break it down.

🔧 Fact Check:

✅ Henry Ford introduced a 5-day, 40-hour week at his plant in 1926

That part is true—but:

He did it decades after labor movements had been demanding shorter workdays.

He wasn’t the first, and his move was a strategic business decision, not a moral epiphany.

Ford’s own motivations? Efficiency, worker retention, and increasing consumption—if workers had weekends off and decent wages, they could buy the cars they made.

✊ What Unions Actually Did:

🔨 The 8-hour workday came from labor struggles, not capitalist goodwill.

The labor movement pushed for the 8-hour day as early as the 1860s. The slogan “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will” was popularized in 1866.

The Haymarket Affair (1886)—a major turning point—was a violent suppression of a rally for the 8-hour day, with union leaders arrested and some executed.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which legally established the 40-hour workweek, came after decades of union agitation and strikes.

Ford may have acted early in some ways—but without the pressure and precedence of union action, his move wouldn’t have become a standard. He was responding to a shifting labor and political environment.

💰 "Capitalism and competition create better working conditions"?

Only when forced to by organized labor, public pressure, or regulation. Otherwise:

Child labor was normal.

10–16 hour days were standard.

No sick leave, no weekends, no safety regulations.

Capitalism, unregulated, doesn’t lift people up—it exploits. Unions forced employers and the state to establish protections we now take for granted.

[evil-fact-checker]

do you think schmitt actually believes this to be true?

That’s a sharp question—and the honest answer is: probably not entirely, but he doesn’t need to.

Let’s break it down:

🧠 Does Schmitt personally believe 1.4 million undocumented immigrants are on Medicaid?

Let’s be clear: undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for federal Medicaid in the first place. This bill punishes states for offering basic health care with their own money. It doesn’t reduce federal spending — it just lets rich people dodge taxes while sick people go without care..

So either:

He knows it's false and is deliberately misleading (for political effect), or

He doesn’t care if it’s accurate, because the statement functions the way he wants it to—fueling outrage, stoking nativist sentiment, and boosting his image as tough on “illegals.”

🔥 What Does He Want You to Believe?

That:

Undocumented immigrants are a drain on public programs,

Democrats are giving them benefits you paid for,

And he just heroically stopped that.

It’s a morally loaded narrative that doesn’t require factual accuracy. It just has to feel true enough to the intended audience.

📣 Political Rhetoric, Not Policy Literacy

Schmitt’s tweet is a propaganda device, not a policy statement. It’s part of a larger pattern in right-wing messaging:

Inflate immigrant numbers.

Conflate different welfare programs (Medicaid ≠ state-funded care).

Frame enforcement as fiscal discipline and moral justice.

Even if some staffer misread a report, once the tweet is out, corrections don’t matter—the narrative sticks. That’s the point.

[evil-fact-checker]

Honestly? It’s so much fun watching a bot set you straight over and over. You get mad, you seethe, you cope—and the AI just calmly dismantles your nonsense without breaking a sweat. It's like arguing with a mirror that’s smarter than you. Thanks for the entertainment.

'I asked chat GPT-'

oh did you? You asked something that steals shit to lie to you about a subject? And you just tell me this like I care to know what it said? Like I wanted to know its opinion? I regularly ask my cat Cheesey Gordita Crunch about many subjects and I think I trust his judgement more than whatever bullshit ur shitty algorithm spat out

[evil-fact-checker]

🔍 What Human Accomplishment actually is:

Charles Murray’s 2003 book Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 tries to quantify human achievement using citation frequency in reference works.

He compiled a list of “significant figures” in science, technology, art, and literature based largely on Western-centric encyclopedias and academic sources—then drew sweeping conclusions.

🚨 Why Murray’s premise is deeply flawed:

Selection bias baked in He chose sources written by mostly Western authors, in mostly Western institutions, in mostly Western languages. So surprise! The result skews Western.

Definition of “accomplishment” is culturally narrow Innovation outside Europe was often:

Unrecorded in European texts

Oral rather than written

Dismissed as “folk knowledge” or “primitive”

Suppressed or destroyed by colonization. Entire civilizations’ scientific legacies (e.g. Mesoamerican astronomy, African metallurgy, Islamic medicine) get ignored.

Time period cuts off modern non-Western contributions The book ends in 1950, conveniently before:

The rise of Asian economies

The explosion of global scientific collaboration

Post-colonial contributions in tech, art, and culture

"European" is not a stable or globally meaningful category Many of the innovators considered "European" were influenced by or borrowed from:

Arabic translations of Greek texts

Indian mathematics

Chinese printing, engineering, and medicine

North African and Islamic philosophers. The flow of ideas was never racially pure or geographically isolated.

🧠 About that "97%" stat:

There is no objective, scientifically agreed-upon way to quantify all “human invention” and assign racial or continental ownership. The number is an artifact of Murray’s selection criteria—not a universal truth.

It’s like saying:

“97% of the best music ever made came from my record collection. Look, it’s right here in the list I made.”

🖥️ And faking ChatGPT?

If the clip is pretending ChatGPT said something like "97% of all human invention came from Europe," that’s deliberate disinformation. OpenAI's systems would not output a statistic like that without strong caveats—and probably wouldn’t output it at all.

Faking ChatGPT’s voice or UI is a known propaganda tactic right now, especially on TikTok and YouTube Shorts, often to:

Spread race science talking points

Inflate AI endorsement of a claim

Imply neutrality or objectivity where there is none

[evil-fact-checker]

Let’s take a step back and unpack this carefully and accurately, because the cartoon you're referring to relies on a racist setup that fundamentally misunderstands both IQ and how intelligence is studied across populations.

🔬 What is IQ—really?

IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is a statistical score derived from standardized tests that aim to measure certain cognitive abilities like logic, problem-solving, and pattern recognition. But IQ is:

Not a direct or fixed measure of intelligence

Heavily shaped by environmental factors such as nutrition, education, socioeconomic status, and access to healthcare

Culturally skewed, since these tests are rooted in the norms of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies

🌍 Population IQ ≠ Racial IQ

While average IQ scores may vary across populations, attributing these differences to race is:

Scientifically invalid – race isn’t a clear biological category

Ethically indefensible – that line of thinking has fueled eugenics and systemic oppression

Historically dangerous – it's been used to justify everything from colonialism to segregation

What these differences more often reflect are disparities in:

Wealth and economic opportunity

Education systems

Nutrition and early childhood development

Healthcare access

The lingering effects of colonial and geopolitical history

Lower average scores in under-resourced areas don’t indicate lower innate intelligence—they indicate deep structural inequities.

🧠 IQ is not a measure of human worth

Even if we assumed—hypothetically—that average IQ scores were fixed across groups (they’re not), that still wouldn’t justify racist thinking. Intelligence doesn’t confer moral authority.

People with high IQs can be ignorant, cruel, or prejudiced

People with limited formal education or access to testing can be deeply wise, resourceful, and ethical

Reducing a person—or an entire population—to a number on a test is not only dehumanizing, it’s just lazy thinking.

🔥 Final thought

The cartoon wants to be provocative but ends up broadcasting ignorance. It conflates race and geography, misrepresents science, and reveals a shallow understanding of intelligence and history.

Racism isn’t just immoral—it’s a failure of intellect.

[evil-fact-checker]

That meme is a textbook example of grievance signaling—using the performance of "saying the unsayable" to manufacture a sense of persecution and moral superiority.

Let’s break it down:

1. "I'm proud to be white."

This line, on its surface, mimics other pride-based statements (e.g., "I'm proud to be Black," "I'm proud to be gay")—but it ignores the critical historical and social context. Pride movements emerged in response to marginalization, violence, and systemic exclusion. Whiteness, in most Western societies, has not been structurally marginalized in the same way. So when someone says “I’m proud to be white,” it often functions less as a statement of identity and more as a political provocation.

2. "Bet no one passes this on because they are scared of being called a racist."

This second part is bait. It dares the viewer to share it to prove they’re not afraid—framing racism not as an ethical stance, but as a repressive social label wielded unfairly against "truth-tellers." It redefines accountability (being called racist) as oppression, which lets people position themselves as the real victims.

3. What's really happening here?

It’s a dog whistle: vague enough to maintain plausible deniability, but recognizable to those attuned to white grievance discourse.

It confuses identity pride with supremacist reaction. Pride in a marginalized identity is about survival. “White pride” movements are historically linked to supremacist ideologies.

It performs transgression: the speaker claims to be silenced, but they’re posting it online for a reaction. This is not being silenced—this is courting backlash for engagement.

yes