6 ms·

This shows how a statement can be factually true and completely disingenuous at the same time. Yes 1/3 are effected badly but we just say that it can have posi

• everdrive 5y ago
  It sounds like this is part of the point you're making, but this sort of statement should only be considered a lie. Some philosophers might correctly call this "bullshit," however colloquially it's the same as a lie: it intends to deceive.
  • Loughla 5y ago
    Honestly, though, when did 'technically correct' become the baseline for messaging? If you say what's 'technically correct' even if you ignore the entire mountain of steaming horse shit right behind it, you get a pass anymore. Why? Why is this socially acceptable? Is this different from the past, or are we just more aware of it?
    • __s 5y ago
      It isn't different from the past; see tobacco
    • ysavir 5y ago
      Whenever I hear people say "technically correct is the best kind of correct", I inform them that that's technically incorrect.
    • lmkg 5y ago
      First, it's possible to do worse and be factually incorrect. This was, and still is, common. Second, it's possible to objective demonstrate whether a factual statement is correct or not. But whether a statement is disingenuous or misleading cannot be proven with the same level of certainty (absent evidence of intent). So bad-faith actors can always guarantee that disputing that contention will end in an "agree to disagree" draw at worst.
  • spockz 5y ago
    It was. I was so disgusted with how this way of saying “technically true” things is used and accepted. As the other comment stated.
• pulse7 5y ago
  They are "bending the truth" which is per definition "to say something that is not true or that misleads people but that is usually not regarded as a serious or harmful lie"...
  • mgh2 5y ago
    A half truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
    • dmix 5y ago
      A 2/3rds truth
• gilbetron 5y ago
  Yes, a nuclear bomb explosion can be bad, but there is a case where someone had a tree knocked down that they were going to have to pay to get cut down, so nuclear bombs can have positive effects!
  • franga2000 5y ago
    This is also disingenuous, since they could've gotten the tree cut down without the nuke and so the nuke has no "exclusive" positive value. Social networks have some positive value that is exclusive to them, like the ability for people to connect with friends as well as diverse groups of strangers - both things that would otherwise be much harder if not impossible for many.
    • ysavir 5y ago
      Exclusive to social networks... And restaurants, bars, parks, meetup groups, local events, email lists, chat servers (eg Discord), and generally taking the time to meet your friends and family in person rather than on the web. It's only "much harder if not impossible" for lack of trying. And while yes, there are some out there that simply don't have such options, we also have people that need to cut down a tree but can't afford the work, and so simply hope it won't fall on their house the next time it gets windy.
      • franga2000 5y ago
        Because in reality, all friends and family totally live withing reasonable travel distance of each other and interesting people will always pop into your local bar at the exact time you're there and wear a shirt outlining why you should spend your time trying to meet them as opposed to literally anyone else in the bar. Email lists and chat servers are just Facebook with extra steps. The only difference ends up being the fact that Facebook-like social networks suggest you people and content you might like from a giant pool, whereas the alternatives have rather limited pools and the signal to noise ratio is pathetic because you get literally everything that is posted and have to filter through it manually. Don't get me wrong, I hate Facebook and only use it on maybe a handful of occasions per year, but you can't tell me that it didn't enable things that weren't possible for many before it was invented.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• pnutjam 5y ago
  Yup, if a gang of 7 beats and robs somebody; you can accurately say 7 out of 8 people improved their situation.