One of the things that convinced me to not engage with the left in good faith was a lefty posted a link to an article in an attempt to prove me wrong. I read article and while the headline would suggest it agreed with lefty the facts in the article agreed with me. I post some fact as a response. "What's your source on that?" "The article you just fucking linked to me."
Few read past the headline. Fewer read past the fold. Back when I didn't just completely ignore corporate news I would notice that they would put counter-narrative facts below the fold when they included them at all.
They do the same thing with "The Science". The Abstract or even Conclusion may conflict with the data presented, because you can get away with telling the truth in data but certain uncomfortable conclusions will get your paper rejected. Try telling that to someone who quotes a self-contradictory study to you. They'll say you're obviously wrong and not qualified to interpret The Science.
It's like, if they do any reading, it's that they only read the framing.
A huge number of cats, greater than 59%, are gray. Some experts have said that some grays may appear darker, or potentially even black in some light.
Leftist: "Almost all cats are black."
A vanishingly small amount of cats, some scientists speculate even less than 61% of cats, are dark in color. Further analysis is needed, but initial investigations suggest that some shades of gray may include colors that may appear to be black.
Leftist: "Black cats are extremely rare.
Raw data: 60% of cats are gray
You: "Most cats are gray"
Leftist: "Why do you hate The Science? Is it because you're racist against cats? You should fucking kill yourself because you're so stupid. Why can't you just fucking die."
One of the things that convinced me to not engage with the left in good faith was a lefty posted a link to an article in an attempt to prove me wrong. I read article and while the headline would suggest it agreed with lefty the facts in the article agreed with me. I post some fact as a response. "What's your source on that?" "The article you just fucking linked to me."
Few read past the headline. Fewer read past the fold. Back when I didn't just completely ignore corporate news I would notice that they would put counter-narrative facts below the fold when they included them at all.
They do the same thing with "The Science". The Abstract or even Conclusion may conflict with the data presented, because you can get away with telling the truth in data but certain uncomfortable conclusions will get your paper rejected. Try telling that to someone who quotes a self-contradictory study to you. They'll say you're obviously wrong and not qualified to interpret The Science.
That is the thing that kills me.
You made the data, you posted the data, you reviewed the data, and it said the opposite of what you wanted...
...SO YOU JUST FUCKING LIE IN THE CONCLUSION AND HOPE NO ONE READS!
It's like, if they do any reading, it's that they only read the framing.
Leftist: "Almost all cats are black."
Leftist: "Black cats are extremely rare.
You: "Most cats are gray"
Leftist: "Why do you hate The Science? Is it because you're racist against cats? You should fucking kill yourself because you're so stupid. Why can't you just fucking die."