5 ms·

Speaking of audio and video, this is what people said about US soldiers committing war crimes in Vietnam or Iraq, or police brutality against minorities in the

Speaking of audio and video, this is what people said about US soldiers committing war crimes in Vietnam or Iraq, or police brutality against minorities in the US. Then we get pictures of the My Lai massacre, or Abu Ghraib, or video of Rodney King and George Floyd. Actually your fringe tends to argue nothing wrong happened with Rodney King or George Floyd, or they were asking for it, fueling fires of the inevitable upheavals that follow.

parineum 5y ago
> Then we germt pictures of the My Lai massacre, or Abu Grain, or video of Rodney King and George Floyd. And most people said it was horrible. What you're saying, to me, sounds like people were skeptical when there was no evidence but then evidence came out. Then you leave out that a lot of people's minds were changed with evidence.
- specialist 5y ago
  He's saying some minds (the fringe) aren't changed, regardless of the evidence.
  - parineum 5y ago
    Who cares? He's responding to someone saying "I'm surprised there's not video/audio" and responds by saying "it won't change the fringe's mind"? It will change a lot of people's minds, just like it did in all of those incidents he named.
    - specialist 5y ago
      That's not what u/VictorPath wrote or meant. Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). Whereas you and I can watch the Rodney King footage and see the plain truth that the cops beat the shit out of King without cause, there will always be quislings spreading FUD.
      - parineum 5y ago
        > Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is sufficient for most people. Where does convincing the "fringe" come in? Is he accusing his parent of being "fringe" for noting a lack of evidence in a context where it should be trivial to gather? > It'd be cool if there was any evidence at all. > You can't convince the fringe with evidence! It's non-sequitur.
orblivion 5y ago
There's also been plenty of times when some report of an awful story with a cop completely falls apart with sufficient video evidence. The cop who "planted evidence" when it turned out he was just returning something to the car if you see more context. The cop who shot a teenage girl who turned out to be mid-stab about to potentially kill someone. Etc. Especially these days with social media, so many outlandish stories turn out not to be true. Not having doubt creates incentives to lie more. But I'd agree that you don't want to be extreme in disbelief either.

parineum 5y ago

> Then we germt pictures of the My Lai massacre, or Abu Grain, or video of Rodney King and George Floyd. And most people said it was horrible. What you're saying, to me, sounds like people were skeptical when there was no evidence but then evidence came out. Then you leave out that a lot of people's minds were changed with evidence.

specialist 5y ago
He's saying some minds (the fringe) aren't changed, regardless of the evidence.
- parineum 5y ago
  Who cares? He's responding to someone saying "I'm surprised there's not video/audio" and responds by saying "it won't change the fringe's mind"? It will change a lot of people's minds, just like it did in all of those incidents he named.
  - specialist 5y ago
    That's not what u/VictorPath wrote or meant. Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). Whereas you and I can watch the Rodney King footage and see the plain truth that the cops beat the shit out of King without cause, there will always be quislings spreading FUD.
    - parineum 5y ago
      > Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is sufficient for most people. Where does convincing the "fringe" come in? Is he accusing his parent of being "fringe" for noting a lack of evidence in a context where it should be trivial to gather? > It'd be cool if there was any evidence at all. > You can't convince the fringe with evidence! It's non-sequitur.

orblivion 5y ago

There's also been plenty of times when some report of an awful story with a cop completely falls apart with sufficient video evidence. The cop who "planted evidence" when it turned out he was just returning something to the car if you see more context. The cop who shot a teenage girl who turned out to be mid-stab about to potentially kill someone. Etc. Especially these days with social media, so many outlandish stories turn out not to be true. Not having doubt creates incentives to lie more. But I'd agree that you don't want to be extreme in disbelief either.