I had someone the other day tell me the Tiananmen “tank man” incident never happened. We were discussing cognitive biases and she used this as an example of confirmation bias. But naturally she was arguing that anyone who didn’t share her world view suffered from confirmation bias.
When I said “the incident did happen and there’s photographic evidence” she told me "Google it there’s no photo "
Well, we googled it and there is, in fact, a photo. There’s more than one, actually.
I decided that presenting facts no longer was the point of the conversation when she shifted to the argument “that photo is known to be staged.”
It sounds like they got a bit confused. Tank man is real, but I’m reasonably sure he was not actually crushed by the tank which was the lie we were all told by our textbooks growing up, to bolster the “China bad” position held by the Western world.
I’ve never seen it claimed he was cruched by the tanks?
I’ve seen it claimed the bodies of the student protestors were run over by the tanks repeatedly until they were mush and there is photos to support this.
But the story of tank man was that he stood in front of the tanks and they tried to go around him, but he moved in front of them again.
I think you’re right and she was confused but that sort of illustrates the point. If someone is arguing a fallacy that is easily proven a fallacy then it indicates to me that they are generally going to be an unreliable source of information.
This is basically the alt-right approach to debate. They don’t care about being right, they just want to own the libs.
This.
I had someone the other day tell me the Tiananmen “tank man” incident never happened. We were discussing cognitive biases and she used this as an example of confirmation bias. But naturally she was arguing that anyone who didn’t share her world view suffered from confirmation bias.
When I said “the incident did happen and there’s photographic evidence” she told me "Google it there’s no photo "
Well, we googled it and there is, in fact, a photo. There’s more than one, actually.
I decided that presenting facts no longer was the point of the conversation when she shifted to the argument “that photo is known to be staged.”
🙄
It sounds like they got a bit confused. Tank man is real, but I’m reasonably sure he was not actually crushed by the tank which was the lie we were all told by our textbooks growing up, to bolster the “China bad” position held by the Western world.
I’ve never seen it claimed he was cruched by the tanks?
I’ve seen it claimed the bodies of the student protestors were run over by the tanks repeatedly until they were mush and there is photos to support this.
But the story of tank man was that he stood in front of the tanks and they tried to go around him, but he moved in front of them again.
Also fuck off tankie
One inaccuracy in a historical report allows detractors to call the whole thing a lie.
I think you’re right and she was confused but that sort of illustrates the point. If someone is arguing a fallacy that is easily proven a fallacy then it indicates to me that they are generally going to be an unreliable source of information.
the card says moops