zlacker

3 points:

1. An observation that you are arguing from a position of assuming malice from the other side. "They" are trying to twist everything, therefore evidence is not required since "they" won't listen anyway

2. You can point at any public twitter mob where the real conversation was made public afterwards or where you know the inside scoop and with the caveat of anecdata it could strengthen your point

3. You seem to be dangerously close to resting on a "what even is 'fact based'?" argument repeating that "they" are determined to misunderstand statements in malicious ways

>>igorkr+(OP)
You said “if I say something like this, there is no room for attack/misinterpretation”. I showed you how such a statement can be easily attacked/misinterpreted - and I can do that because I’ve been in enough conversations like those to know that this mindset is relatively popular.

You are free to not believe me and continue to live your life as you were, I honestly don’t care. Take my statements as anecdata and move on. Just don’t come crying to me when you’re cancelled because of some “fact-based” statement.

>>igorkr+(OP)
Facts can't win if emotions are involved. Facts only work when everyone is rational, but, to quote former FBI hostage negotiator, Chris Voss, from his excellent book on negotiation (Never Split the Difference): humans are inherently irrational. A large chunk of his book is how you rarely succeed in arguments or negotiations based on facts, because humans are irrational emotional creatures. I highly highly recommend reading the book (because its great, not because it says this particular thing).

>>dkerst+Wh
Rationality and emotions are not apposed.

>>iovrth+Co
No, but you also can’t rely on just one. You need both. I highly recommend reading he book, he explains it a lot better than I ever could.

The problem is many people think that just by presenting facts they will get through to people, but that doesn’t work. You have to understand the other persons emotional state too.