What in particular constitutes "an easy stab"? Is it the idea that oral histories face skepticism, or the idea that Western accounts face insufficient skepticis

What in particular constitutes "an easy stab"? Is it the idea that oral histories face skepticism, or the idea that Western accounts face insufficient skepticism? The former seems to be plainly true, and in many cases justifiably so. The latter, if it were true, would be a more serious accusation. To refute it, I'm trying to think of a Western historical narrative that has faced enough skepticism that it has been replaced with a more accurate narrative... perhaps you can help me? Or perhaps you would defend the latter idea as a good thing? I want to assume better of an HN interlocutor, but that would fit better with your mention of copying and original sources. If we must "stab" something as vast and varied as "Western history", ISTM the most common choices of focus and emphasis are more questionable than the accuracy.