No -- the way you framed it was that this information changes our interpretation of what occurred (from being straightforward police abuse to being something more complex). Even if you were right, the family trying to evade the police doesn't complicate or otherwise change the fundamental situation.slinches wrote:Isn't that essentially what I said? Maybe there's a little difference in emphasis, but I thought I was making it clear that the post was trying to provide the information from the local article I read (now known to be from a questionable source).
Again, note how arbiteroftruth framed their skepticism regarding the body-cam situation. They didn't claim this made the situation less straightforward. They didn't even say: "I'm not claiming the actions are justified, or race isn't a factor, but..." -- because sometimes, just saying you don't mean X can make it look like you mean X ("I'm not saying that the death-toll at Auschwitz wasn't horrible, but..." -- can you really imagine anything good coming after that "but"?).
I get that you were trying to express your skepticism regarding the factual content of this story in a way that respected the core concerns here (police brutality, institutional racism, etc). I get that you're frustrated because it feels like people are insistently interpreting your posts in the worst way possible. But consider: Some people here have experienced both police brutality and the endless attempts to justify, minimize, and otherwise deny that brutality.
It might pay dividends here for you to take a long, hard look at your own posts from that perspective: Imagine you've had police beat you and nearly kill you. Imagine you constantly see people on the internet talking about how the times you were beaten and nearly killed are "more complicated" than they appear, and the media is "over-sensationalizing" them.
Reading your posts from that perspective might give you reason to interpret them the way you see people interpreting them.
That's the thing: You can be misleading even when you don't intend to be. Someone could bring up the 4 million number from the Soviet plaques with wholly admirable intentions... but it still ends up being indistinguishable from the rhetoric of a Holocaust denier.slinches wrote:I get that. Though, it's not the information itself that has a negative effect. It's the use of it to mislead. In that example it's using a known case of exaggeration to imply that the actual number is an exaggeration as well.
I don't think I did that here, but I can see how some may read it that way if that's what they wanted to see.
I'm not saying that everyone here who's angry with you is a pure, righteous soul; I'm not saying you're some sort of racism-denying pro-police blow-hard. But I am saying that... it's probably a little more complicated than "everyone's just seeing what they want to see"?
Remember, that axiom goes both ways: People often see what they want to see, including you.