[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.