Skip to main content

A chain email might be a hoax if...

Have a crazy uncle or a Facebook friend you knew from high school, whose friend invite you're regretting accepting, that isn't coy about sending you political chain emails? Sure, we could just ignore these posts and emails, delete them, and pretend we never received them, but then unfortunately, other people will read and believe them, and forward the messages onto several other potentially gullible individuals. I'm rather obsessive about fact-checking as it is, but especially when it comes to these chain emails, which I've come to learn are typically false to one extent or another. It's gotten to the point where I'm almost 100% accurate on whether or not such an email is at least partially false when reading through it one time. There are times it simply amazes me that anyone could believe some of them. However, since it seems there are plenty of such individuals out there, I thought I'd provide a few pointers on how to spot a false political chain email.

1. Source of the Unknown - What's the source of this chain email? Some person you've never heard of before? Is there even a name given? Was it supposedly written by a 6-year old with the vocabulary of a Harvard college grad? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then it's probably a hoax.

2. Tricky Link - Does this chain email seem insistent about its honesty? Almost too insistent? Does it even provide you a fancy blue link to try proving to you it's true, secretly hoping the link being present is good enough for you, because if you actually click it, nothing will be displayed? Once again, if you answer yes to any of these questions, there's a good chance it's a hoax.

3. Bias(s) - No matter what your political stripe, does the chain email come across like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ranting on one of their shows? Does it sound like a drunken NRA member who sounds adamant in slurring, "It's true! Obama has trained gorillas and dragons to sneak into our houses and take away our guns!" If the answer is yes, then there's a very good chance that at least part of the rant is false.

4. Spread the Disease - In most such emails, something such as the following will be written at the very end of them: "If you want to make a difference and stop X from destroying this country, send this message to everyone you know!" I translate this message to: "If you're as gullible as we hope you are, you'll send this BS to more people such as yourself, and before long, millions of people will believe that President Obama was born on Mars and will soon be sending his Martian friends here to destroy the Earth!" Yeah, if the chain email demands you to pass along the message, there's a very good chance it's nonsense.

5. If I Only Had a Brain - When reading these emails, do something it appears a growing number of Americans seem reluctant on partaking in very frequently - thinking. "President Obama's mother used to be a man." Now, let's think for a moment here... If his mother used to be a man, then how did the president come to be exactly? Was it magic? A miracle? Did the Virgin Mary call down and say, "Hey, I had Jesus as a virgin. Let's allow this former man to give birth to a future president."? So, if common sense tells you that the email is a bunch of malarkey, then that's probably the case.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"