[tptacek]

I'm really not interested in lining up and correcting the scorecards, so much as I am in the broader point that what people suppose to be simple, clarifying jolts of information --- body counts, horrible photos, whatever --- don't so much clarify as nudge people towards a preferred narrative.

That doesn't make them wrong. There is truth and there is falsity and for every important, complicated truth, there are people who "prefer" the narrative that conveys it. But it's not the body count that establishes the truth, it's the underlying work that went into revealing it.

The truth of the situation you're intent on nudging us about is intensely complicated.

[whatshisface]

I am sorry but stating the truth is beyond criticism. If someone is wrong you can state a different fact that illuminates their facts, or wait until they lie, which they must do if they are sticking with the wrong ideas.

You can't criticize someone for saying something that's true, and people only do so when they are losing the argument. If you're so beaten back that you're resorting to that, I will help you: Hamas killed more Israeli children than Saddam killed American children.

[tptacek]

In addition to the problem that the parent commenter seems to be comprehensively wrong, just as a matter of fact, they're also obviously not just stating simple facts to contribute to the body of knowledge we draw from to make our own conclusions; there is a clear subtext to the "facts" they're providing (again, scare-quoting because that's not what they are --- though, give it another month, and check again).

But, more generally, you're just not responding to anything I actually wrote.

[oa335]

I mean, to me it seems that they are in fact just stating “facts”. What, in your eyes, is the “correct” way to state those purported facts that would “contribute to the body of knowledge we draw on the make our own conclusions“?

[whatshisface]

"Your facts are biased," is only a legitimate rejoinder if you offer the rest of the facts. Otherwise it is a tool that could be used against anything the speaker doesn't want to acknowledge.

"Reality is too complex to understand, therefore the understanding you are offering must be wrong," is also a way to argue against anything, unless it's accompanied by some part of that reality that the other person cannot explain with their theory.

[tptacek]

I don't know who you're quoting here, but it isn't me.

[whatshisface]

"The truth of the situation you're intent on nudging us about is intensely complicated."

The act of stating facts is criticized as being "intent on nudging us," and rather than challenging those factual claims or contextualizing them, the line suggests epistemic disengagement in the face of a reality that is "intensely complicated."

[tptacek]

In summarizing the thread to this point you might want to start by acknowledging that the things you're referring to as facts weren't, and that my critique was that the assumed facts weren't contextualized. I don't think "epistemic disengagement" is a rap you're going to be able to pin on me, sorry.

[ars]

Except he was NOT stating the truth, not even remotely close to the truth, and I replied to his post.

[whatshisface]

I think your post is a good next post for the conversation, I am only complaining about vague methods of shifting the discussion away from facts and towards suspicions.

[zogrodea]

An Israeli father (and media in general) thought his own daughter died and turned out to be wrong when she was released (she was kept as a hostage which I don't think is right but she was not killed). https://twitter.com/moghilemear13/status/1728629391373029792

The same media that's wrong about this is giving other information based on similar assumptions (granted that they were corrected).

[whatshisface]

I would be overjoyed if a significant number of the assumed casualties turn out to be mistaken but I am not hopeful.