I can't wait until America is great again! No more 'spics... I mean criminals! We'll finally kill all them negr... I mean protect our police! Them fag... uh... quee...

I can't even beat my wife without the cops coming! I mean what has the world come to!!!!

@Chris: When the Übermensch comes, he'll smite them all indifferently.

@LennyLen Perspectivism. Get your info from as much mutually contradicting channels as possible.

Can you please explain your fact-checking process in an example?

That's a faulty argument and you know it.

Give me a topic.

For example, Syrian Civil war. (I'm not gonna just do it right now unless you can pick a less complex topic, as this is an involved process. I don't "endorse" any stance without significant research because I believe my opinions and endorsements should hold weight.)

First thing to do, hit Google and Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Then look at the talk page to see if there is any controversial opinions. Of course, no controversy can simply mean that Wikipedia's liberal bias has completely swamped out any attempts for balance, like they do in the gender and sexuality pages. So that's not automatic yes or, no, it's all part of building a bigger picture.

Instead of sitting at one page, read the history of topics that are linked to it. Read the pages of all the relevant actors, and look for any controversy there.

Google "Cause of Syrian Civil War" and be sure to read both conservative, liberal websites, from both the USA/UK, as well as people who dislike the US, such as Al Jazeera, and RT. Everyone has an agenda to push and when you set outside of an agenda targeted at your demographic, it's much easier to see it. Russians reading RT are given a very different narrative than citizens reading liberal USA papers.

Moreover, there will be clear bias in many of them, but by adding together lines of opposing biased facts, you can then look at what remains. You can see what facts aren't disputed at all. You can look at how the same facts are written differently. You can look at very subtle wording differences. You can also look at the tone a given author is using and his or her word choice.

Go straight to Social Media (e.g. a Google search through Reddit) for alternate opinions that are not subject to government or corporate approval. Noting of course, that many governments and organizations will pay for shills to push public opinion.

You can also check out YouTube videos. You can go out of your way to read crazy people's videos, and check every one of their facts to see if they hold up. If one of them does, they can hint at a mass media cover up. For example, the Rotherham scandal is pretty much hidden from all mainstream media.

So, no source is perfect. But the point is that you take from a large variety of sources, especially ones not designed with you in mind, and start layering them on top of each other.

To me, it makes perfect sense in my robotics background, as a bunch of summed heightmaps representing each sensor's probability prediction of the robot's location. But I'm not sure the best way to explain that to a layman.

Now, to back up to a 10,000 ft view. It's obvious you wanted an example so you could either pass judgement or pick apart what you expected to be a poor attempt at critical analysis. So I apologize for failing to give you that.

But the truth is, regardless of whether you disagree with my opinions, they are, thoroughly researched opinions.

With perspectivism comes the admission that my own perspective might be incomplete or even mistaken. And yes, much crap passes under the radar, I guess, especially if it's crap that agrees with me. That's why I don't take most of my opinions too seriously. Except those on programming, because those opinions are based on the way I personally like to work.