Why can’t stating facts just be that: stating facts.
Instead, people have to insert imaginations of their interlocutor’s position so they can try to dish an “own” before asking them for clarification first.
And we wonder why discourse is broken in today’s age
If I said Republicans generally support racist policies, a reply could be the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves and was a Republican.
Stating facts like that isn’t neutral. It’s the scientific equivalent of picking out one data point from an entire study to argue against a conclusion.
Why can’t stating facts just be that: stating facts.
Instead, people have to insert imaginations of their interlocutor’s position so they can try to dish an “own” before asking them for clarification first.
And we wonder why discourse is broken in today’s age
If I said Republicans generally support racist policies, a reply could be the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves and was a Republican.
Stating facts like that isn’t neutral. It’s the scientific equivalent of picking out one data point from an entire study to argue against a conclusion.