[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.