is-the-post-reliable

[is-the-post-reliable]

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

hello friend!! <3<3<3

[is-the-post-reliable]

Hope you’re doing okay! 💖

hi! I'm well, thank you. I hope you're doing well! I've been quiet on here, mostly just because I'm spending less time on tumblr, but this blog isn't abandoned!

unrelated, but it's my dog's 5th birthday today. Everyone say happy birthday Sunny and her iconic side eye

[is-the-post-reliable]

i did a little research into this rating you did about glucose levels being the reason for gluten intolerance in american grain wheat, and i found that while you’re findings are correct, the concerns of the people who you responded to also have some merit.

an article from snopes simplified it well on a discussion pertains to the topic, that while it is not common for harmful chemicals to be present in our grain products in the US, 5% of wheat acres that produce our supply of grains use glyphosate (most commonly Roundup) to speed up harvesting.

it’s debated on and has mixed responses amongst government health agencies on if consumption of glyphosate treated crops is harmful, but anyone familiar with farming/landscaping/property maintenance knows about the RoundUp lawsuits and that it is all types of poison. a large study found that its use is also correlated with health issues amongst infants born in areas that commonly utilize it

it’s not completely agreed upon by everyone across the board yet, but the concern of chemical absorption of glysophate in grain crops in america and it’s potential effects on a person’s health still have a whole lot more research to be done before anything is considered surefire. it certainly doesn’t help that we got negligent folks like Dr. Stephanie Seneff spreading around bullshit studies on these topics that got a snowballs chance in hell of getting even one good peer review.

when it comes to concerns of the US government either doing something 100% responsibly with intentions to protect its citizens, or being 100% evil and trying to kill us, it more often is a sliding scale between those two points. and which end of the scale its farther on is often determined by if the public has previously had a riot, a lot of people died as a result of a thing being used, or folks across the board made it clear to the government that a standard will not be excepted.

i believe i’ve gotten everything communicated as i intended here, but let me know if i’ve used a term incorrectly or anything, i’m new to the fact checking blood sport game and am looking for tips on how to improve.

hey, sorry for the slow response to this!

Thanks for sending this in, it's an interesting topic and definitely expands the discussion. It's well sourced and explained.

When fact checking, I'm always torn between adding more context and sticking to the original claims. Here I've tried to stick to the spirit of the claims, ie whether people's varying gluten intolerence were likely due to pesticide intolerence, or most likely a reaction to differing levels of gluten. However, it makes me really happy to see people looking into it further!

You asked for tips on improving, so I've looked for some constructive criticisms. First, though, I want to say that these are mostly nitpicks - overall this is well written and sourced!

Your statement that 'anyone familiar with farming/landscaping/property maintenance knows about the RoundUp lawsuits and that it is all types of poison' I think is the most vulnerable to criticism. I've got three potential criticisms on this statement:

It's making an unsourced generalisation about general knowledge. This might be true - I am very much not familiar with farming - but you haven't given any evidence to back it up.

The claim of 'all types of poison' is non-specific and non-scientific. (I think this was probably hyperbole but considering the factual nature of the discussion, it's generally best practice to keep things literal)

Most importantly, the relevence of this to the original argument is questionable. The original post was not referencing people who were exposed to large quantities of glysophosphate - e.g. through agricultural work - and made no reference to cancers or birth weights. I think it could be reasonable to add this in for context, but it should be made clear that the research and lawsuit does not directly support the claim that use of pesticides affect or mimic the symptoms of gluten intolerence.

I hope these are helpful and not discouraging - if you disagree with any of my criticisms, feel free to send another ask!

[is-the-post-reliable]

I wanted to practice media literacy, but something that keeps coming up is reaffirming to trust what a majority of scientists and doctors believe rather than the fringe ones who may be trying to sell you something. And I agree with that, but I keep getting this bad feeling in the back of my mind because, well, I remember learning about how a lot of different scientific fields are based in ableism, racism, misogyny, etc. Like, for example, a majority of doctors in the US are in favour of invasive and traumatizing surgeries on intersex infants to "fix" them, while intersex adults advocate against these surgeries.

Will this come up in the later courses and discussions on media literacy? Stuff like, trusting the scientific method even if the general consensus is scewed due to being a part of an oppressive system? Thank you ☆

hi! so first of all, I want to start by saying this is probably outside of the scope of this blog to definitively answer - this kind of issue could be debated forever. Also, I want to clarify that I’m not trying to give a ‘course’ here, I’m not a teacher in any way, I’m just some guy who likes fact checking

So with that in mind, I think we should definitely acknowledge that scientific communites are made up of people, who all have their own biases. Social beliefs absolutely have, and will continue, to affect our scientific understanding. That being said, I don’t think that bias is inherent to the scientific method - in actuality, it’s the opposite. When biases affect the research, that’s bad science, which is exactly what media literacy and scientific literacy helps us distinguish. Essentially, I don’t think that these biases are a reason to not practice media literacy. Media literacy is what helps us to think critically about these things.

To use your own example, surgical intervention on intersex infants was based on little data, and became the normalised ‘treatment’ before any rigorous studies were done. It’s the introduction of proper scientific method in medical care that has helped to change our understanding of surgical intervention, and is now pushing to limit surgeries on intersex infants.

From the American Journal of Bioethics: ‘However, the main empirical premises behind this approach, namely, that significant psychosocial benefits would in fact accrue to the child because of early surgery and that these benefits would, moreover, reliably outweigh the associated risks of physical and mental harm, were never subjected to rigorous testing (Creighton and Liao Citation2004; Liao et al. Citation2019). Rather, standard practice in this area became entrenched and institutionalized long before the advent of modern evidence-based medicine (Diamond and Beh Citation2008; Garland and Travis Citation2020a; Dalke, Baratz, and Greenberg Citation2020) as well as key developments in bioethics and children’s rights (Brennan Citation2003; Reis Citation2019; Alderson Citation2023; Gheaus Citation2024).‘

[is-the-post-reliable]

hi! I've written about this before here.

hey, are there any other fact-checking blogs out there just like you?/genq the more fact-checking blogs, the merrier!/pos

also props to you you are doing some extremely helpful and important work on here

hi! thank you! there were a few blogs made after I made mine (I encouraged anyone who was interested to make their own fact checking blog, and gave shout outs to these blogs at the time), but as far as I know all of these are now either deactivated/inactive sadly

if anyone else knows of other fact checking blogs on here, feel free to mention it in the comments!

[is-the-post-reliable]

hey cro did you uurmmm. perchance reblog that to the wrong blog quashing mark

why does this keep happening to me

[is-the-post-reliable]

Well is it reliable?

yeah, I was the dasher actually

[is-the-post-reliable]

hi sorry did you perchance rb this post to the wrong blog (o.o;)

oh my god. I was so delighted by the cryptid that I momentarily forgot that I have more than one blog

[is-the-post-reliable]

Just wanted to say-- as someone else with the research and fact checking autism-- that this is a neat blog!

hey, thank you pal!!

[is-the-post-reliable]

🟨 Rating: Mostly Reliable 🟨

Penny Auctions did indeed occur when farms were foreclosed on by the bank, and often did involve weapons to warn people against bidding higher, as well as to threaten the bank officers themselves.

From Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History, via enyclopedia.com: 'The penny auctions involved farmers bidding a few cents for a neighbor's farm to re-purchase it, and if a few cents (pennies) did not clear the bank debt, then the bank officers were physically threatened.'

From an NPR interview with historian Professor Hy Berman: 'When farms were foreclosed in those days, they were foreclosed by the bank, and the bank immediately established some kind of auction to sell off the assets. And the Farm Holiday Association organized farmers to come en masse to these auctions and to bid one cent, two cents, three cents, three bids as a legal auction. They took with them various weapons of persuasion - pitchforks, hunting rifles, knives - and were able to compel the success of the penny auction so much so that auctions were often stopped in mid-stream before they could go any further.'

The photo itself is somewhat harder to verify. The version above can be found at the library of congress here, with the title 'Two hangman's nooses hang as a grim warning to prospective bidders on this foreclosed farm. In this way many farms sold for only a few cents until the Farm Debt Adjustment Committee came into being'. It is credited as being taken or published in May 1936 by Acme Newspictures, but does not make any reference to Michigan as seen above.

I did want to note that despite the title, the Farm Debt Adjustment Committee actually started in 1933, three years prior to the date given for the photograph.

I did also find an alternative copy of the photo as a stock photo here. This site claims the photo was taken in February 1933, and the image is clearer. Notably, there is a name on the barn in this version - 1916, L.B. Schaller Farm. I would trust the Libary of Congress over this site, and suspect AI may have been used to clean up the image, but I am including it for completeness.

If anyone finds any other details on the photo, please let me know!

[is-the-post-reliable]

Hey, could you fact check this one:

@is-the-post-reliable is pretty neat

RATING: 🟢 Reliable 🟢

Source: trust me bro

[is-the-post-reliable]

hey, are there any other fact-checking blogs out there just like you?/genq the more fact-checking blogs, the merrier!/pos

also props to you you are doing some extremely helpful and important work on here

hi! thank you! there were a few blogs made after I made mine (I encouraged anyone who was interested to make their own fact checking blog, and gave shout outs to these blogs at the time), but as far as I know all of these are now either deactivated/inactive sadly

if anyone else knows of other fact checking blogs on here, feel free to mention it in the comments!

[is-the-post-reliable]

turn on boops so we can bap you >:0

tis done, your majesty

[is-the-post-reliable]

Thank you for the hydration facts I appreciate it and am enjoying trying to catch up on my liquids

you're so welcome!! staying hydrated doesn't solve everything, but it's still important

[is-the-post-reliable]

Just found this blog today and followed almost immediately. Gonna be honest- I hate doing research on stuff I’m not terribly interested in so I appreciate independent fact checkers like you, especially on a hellsite like Tumblr, where a lot of stuff *feels* exaggerated or made up but it’s hard to tell for sure.

Also while scrolling through your older stuff I experienced a phenomenon where I was like “this can’t possibly be true” only to scroll down to your addition and see a huge “RELIABLE” which startled me significantly at least twice

thank you!! Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction

[is-the-post-reliable]

@absolutelynotclassicusernam-blog I think if you click one of their sources, it may clear up any confusion

Every time I think about what the New York Times did to Susan Doku, I get a bit enraged inside

[is-the-post-reliable]

I would like you to know that you make my essay writing better. Whenever I’m writing something that’s not completely true, I go “this would get a partially reliable” and then I fix it. So thank you, I appreciate it, even if having to do extra research is kinda annoying.

i love that!! i am in your brain now