Two days after the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, a motive for the 20-year-old shooter’s actions has not been identified, the FBI said — but authorities are learning more about the suspected gunman, as well as the days and moments leading up to the shots being fired.
We’re talking past each other here. I presume I’m no less invested in keeping fascists out of office than you are. That doesn’t provide any excuse not to fully inform myself, or to pretend that something is anything other than what it really is.
You’re talking in context of the upcoming election. I’m talking in context of not abandoning reality. Discarding nuance because other people are irrational doesn’t serve you well in the broader scheme. Let them be confidently wrong. They aren’t going to care what your argument is regardless of what you say, so serve yourself better by giving things their due consideration.
We are not quite talking past each other. No, don’t let them be confidently wrong. Put the argument into language they can understand. You have no hope of convincing anyone outside of your own circles with the attitude that some people are too stupid to understand.
So what argument are you making when they are acting with insufficient information and there isn’t yet sufficient information to come to any actual conclusion? If it’s anything other than “we don’t know yet / I don’t know, and neither do you” that’s not grounded in reality. “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid statement, but it happens a lot that people favor something definitive if flawed. That’s a problem when “I don’t know” is ultimately accurate, not abandoning nuance, and using language that anybody can understand. But that is essentially what the comment you replied to was saying when you said nuance isn’t relevant.
I’m not saying anyone is too stupid to understand. I’m not using willful ignorance to imply an inability to understand, but rather that they simply don’t know, and don’t care to know.
You say, “I don’t know, but-” and then you talk about how, for example, there were a lot of guns in the shooter’s home and talk about American gun culture. You use it as a starting point.
Cool, so we’re adding additional information in order to come to a more nuanced understanding. I like where this is going.
Slightly more nuanced. Not so nuanced as what is given above and not so nuanced that “ignorant people” can’t understand it.
This back and forth is getting dangerously close to being overwrought. If we disagree by such minimal degrees I don’t really care to pursue this further. I think we’ve both made our point.
Peace to you. I’ll see you around.