The beating and flag kissing is sourced to another captive, and might be exaggerated, but her general mistreatment was reported by Swedish diplomats after speaking to her. It’s pretty credible, imo.
Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you’d like to be true?
I sincerely believe that the world is a lot less extreme than what social media is telling us. Exceptions, yes, but those are exceptions. Most of the discussion that takes place anymore is driven by sociologically hacking us, done by interested parties to drive division and distrust. It happens on all sides. That doesn’t mean you should drop your support for peaceful protest, aid delivery, etc., but it does mean we should be aware of propaganda and manipulation that confirms our own biases. The effect of the rush to extremes is that we then create extreme situations. The world is getting uglier and uglier, largely driven by this problem.
Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?
We also have no evidence any of this happened. It is easy to make propaganda when we want to believe it.
The beating and flag kissing is sourced to another captive, and might be exaggerated, but her general mistreatment was reported by Swedish diplomats after speaking to her. It’s pretty credible, imo.
Do we have any sources that aren’t biased toward making her treatment look bad?
Respectfully:
Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you’d like to be true?
(Be honest.)
Not OP but yes.
But it really doesn’t matter. All we’ll get from this incident is word-of-mouth only.
Those nazis are brazen but not stupid, they didn’t film it.
I sincerely believe that the world is a lot less extreme than what social media is telling us. Exceptions, yes, but those are exceptions. Most of the discussion that takes place anymore is driven by sociologically hacking us, done by interested parties to drive division and distrust. It happens on all sides. That doesn’t mean you should drop your support for peaceful protest, aid delivery, etc., but it does mean we should be aware of propaganda and manipulation that confirms our own biases. The effect of the rush to extremes is that we then create extreme situations. The world is getting uglier and uglier, largely driven by this problem.
Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?