3 ms·
> 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 say
by 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 agoHe's saying some minds (the fringe) aren't changed, regardless of the evidence.
- parineum 5y agoWho 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 agoThat'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.