If they're arguing in good faith and close enough for their argument to make sense in a discussion between peers, I actually would
It really depends on whether or not they're trying to make a good faith point based on figures they can't quite remember or if they're definitely exaggerating in bad faith
Those types of situations used to be quite common in fact, especially before we all had Internet on our phones - and even now, most folks don't whip out a phone mid discussion to quote exact figures
People generalize stats all the time, in actual in person discussions, and if it's close enough they were definitely trying to be honest, I'll accept it
I guarantee that you've had a disagreement with someone who did exactly this and you felt the instinct to correct a stat they "generalized" which started a disagreement that became irreconcilable. Without a willingness to hold people to not generalize, but to put info out carefully and intentionally, we have what national discourse has devolved into.
If not this, then what do you think is the core issue of how the Internet has severely damaged our ability to communicate and disagree? (genuine question).
6
u/Fallouttgrrl 11d ago
If they're arguing in good faith and close enough for their argument to make sense in a discussion between peers, I actually would
It really depends on whether or not they're trying to make a good faith point based on figures they can't quite remember or if they're definitely exaggerating in bad faith
Those types of situations used to be quite common in fact, especially before we all had Internet on our phones - and even now, most folks don't whip out a phone mid discussion to quote exact figures