My argument is very simple but you apparently misunderstand.
morgante guessed that I reject fact checking simply if it doesn't confirm my worldview.
I rebutted that the fact checkers in question aren't simply disproving my worldview. Rather they are advancing an opinion-based counter-narrative under the guise of objectivity.
You replied and suggested that I should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth.
I rebutted that I do not claim to be a sterile, objective source of bald fact-checking. And a major news consumption platform is not appending my opinions to people's feeds and elevating my opinions to objective status. My opinions-masquerading-as-fact won't be advanced by Facebook as evidence of the disreputability of those I disagree with.
First I will explain the joke in my previous comment, since it seems to have gone over your head. Read what you wrote literally, as if someone else wrote it:
> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.
> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.
The joke I made works--or doesn't--based on whether or not you can see those statements as a self-evident good thing: wouldn't it be good and proper that Facebook isn't going to be appending your critical analysis to alleged fake news `stores` (sic), given that--by your own admission--you aren't putting yourself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact?
Now to be a bit more serious.
You claim to have an argument...but, where? What is your argument? Where can I find it stated, explicitly, in words?
I can't imagine myself walking away from this conversation saying "you know, despite my initial reaction `halpiamaquark` was actually totally right about...". I mean really, how should I finish that sentence? What's the point you came in here trying to make?
You come across as wanting the world to know you don't like Snopes and Politifact and...that's it?
The play-by-play as I see it starts with this:
> The kosher fact checkers list includes the biased and opinion-based Politifact and Snopes.
That's not an argument; it's a statement of your opinion, but presented as fact.
Now purely talking rhetorical strategies I can't blame you here; after all if you'd lead with this:
> The kosher fact checkers list includes Politifact and Snopes. In my opinion, Politifact and Snopes are biased and opinion-based.
...I think the natural response would be "...and I care because? Is there going to be a point here, eventually?". On the other hand, if you just state your opinion like a fact it's pretty good bait--you'll get people jumping in to play the "I'm going to respond to what I guess you're probably thinking" game.
That's what happened: `morgante` played that game and made a guess, and then, in your own words:
> I rebutted that the fact checkers in question aren't simply disproving my worldview. Rather they are advancing an opinion-based counter-narrative under the guise of objectivity.
I'd characterize this as (a) rejecting his guess at what you think and, then, once again, (b) stating your opinion about Politifact and Snopes as if it were fact.
We're now 3 comments in and there's still no argument: what, again, is the point you're actually trying to make? I mean it's quite clear that you think Snopes and Politifact are biased because you repeat that claim every chance you get, but what's the implication? Can you be direct and make the point you're trying to make, or is there really no point to be had here?
At this point I jump in. It was amusing to me that there was something about presenting opinions as fact that had you so mad--so mad!--while on the other hand you seemed to have no way of expressing yourself other than, well, presenting your opinions as facts.
So I did make a snarky reply but I have to disagree with your characterization of it:
> You replied and suggested that I should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth.
...no, that's not it at all. Where are you getting this "should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth"? That's all you and your quarky ways, and presumably all your unstated ideas and assumptions that could perhaps comprise an argument if you were to surface them explicitly.
All I actually did was (a) take your quote:
> Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous.
...and prepend an "I think" to it, and then (b) point out that failing to do so would've left you seeming guilty of the same thing you are so mad--so mad!--about Politifact and Snopes (allegedly) doing.
Your follow-up response was where you finally introduce some actual statements of fact:
> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.
> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.
...but despite finally providing something other than simple re-statements of your opinions, as a response this was incoherent.
I mean, yeah, I can guess what you might be thinking, but I'm not going to do your job for you.
If you want to claim to have an argument you have to, you know, actually make it: state your premises, show your steps, show your work, and how they all fit together to make the point you want to make. Otherwise you're just venting!
> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.
...all I can say to this:
> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.
...is quelle surprise.
Were you expecting some other outcome?