It’s shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I’ll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we’re talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one’s argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I’d want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings’ targets isn’t adding to the discussion in the same way.
I’m not offended - I just wonder where your priorities are.
You asked a question and I tried to explain why focusing on correcting details can derail a conversation when the consequences and response would likely be materially similar.
I mean I don’t see an Iranian politician looking at the bombing of an enrichment site by the US and finding it much better than bombing a reactor. Do you?
And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don’t think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it’s a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you’re interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
deleted by creator
Yes, it’s good to be precise with statements.
It’s also good to deliver precise information in a way that does not imply further misinformation. Take this statement:
If you reply with “It’s not X”, you inadvertently imply that nothing has happened. “It’s Y, not X” does not have the same implication.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I’ll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we’re talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one’s argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I’d want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings’ targets isn’t adding to the discussion in the same way.
I don’t mean to attack you, but read the room.
deleted by creator
I’m not offended - I just wonder where your priorities are.
You asked a question and I tried to explain why focusing on correcting details can derail a conversation when the consequences and response would likely be materially similar.
I mean I don’t see an Iranian politician looking at the bombing of an enrichment site by the US and finding it much better than bombing a reactor. Do you?
deleted by creator
And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don’t think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it’s a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you’re interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
deleted by creator
Okay, I have a hypothetical question for you:
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
deleted by creator
This is such a weird thread and your tidbit of correction was totally inoffensive and benign
Removed by mod