4 ms·
> I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents,
by CyberRabbi 6y ago
> I disagree with your trivialization of these deaths. I unironically presume that you have little empathy for individual deaths due to gun violence, accidents, and other tragedies, since those are even smaller in scope than the enormous number of people who die of cancer on a regular basis.
I literally “trivialized” nothing. Promoting the use of emotionally neutral language is not “trivialization.” Furthermore, the assumption that I “have little empathy for individual deaths” because I promote emotionally neutral language is both parody and shameful. Thank you for further proving my point.
- darkerside 6y agoYou exaggerated cancer deaths by 400x to minimize what's happening with COVID (and BTW, were at 1k deaths a day, which is creeping up to be similar to the cancer number). You could start with walking back that claim, which was blatantly inaccurate and misleading.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoI did walk the claim back but even if I didn’t citing what I thought was an accurate number is not trivializing. The overall point remains true, invoking 9/11 imagery when talking about covid death numbers is emotionally manipulative rhetoric and it does more harm than good.
- darkerside 6y agoThanks for correcting. In my opinion, "emotionally manipulative" is in the eye of the beholder. So in a way, you're both right. As for the underlying question of, is it helpful? I think it does help to visualize the scope of a disaster which people are asking to have trouble comprehending. Like Stalin said, one death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.