"My Facts Are Right But YOUR Facts Are Wrong"

" As a society, we have, in many instances, lost track of the fact that the truth is the truth even if the one stating the truth is someone who also happens to share views about that truth which the reader may or may not agree with."

The other day, an article from this very site found its way onto a Facebook thread and one of the commentators stated that because he did not align himself with the outlook of the author, then the entire piece had to be discredited. He then put up "his facts," which were, of course, TRUE facts - and he could not imagine that anyone found this to be just a bit ironic and self-serving. 

First of all, one of the major problems with society today is the sad fact that anyone who does not agree with someone else is somehow, by nature of that disagreement, a person who hates the person who has that different view. For example, it is often said that a person who does not view a transgendered person as really being a sex separate from their DNA - a view that is medically sound in ways that can be proven via basic biology 101 - then that person somehow is said to "hate" trans people. 

This kind of nonsense is seen every day. 

Below, in a hypothetical way, let us layout just how this kind of foolish thinking is causing great harm to progress and the ultimate triumph of the truth on any given subject. 

After all,  this cancer of thought has sickened both the news and news commentary with results that are just working to bury the facts, not to help anyone understand them. 

Today, if a writer was to say, simply for the sake of argument, "The Fukushima disaster, though it took place over a decade ago, still haunts the region," that statement can be proven to be accurate. It is accurate even if the reader does not like the writer, does not share the writer's views, or otherwise has a bias against said writer.

If someone were to click the links in the statement above regarding Fukushima, they would find a video of the author giving links which can be seen on the screen in the video along with his opinion and they would see a link to an Insider article that shows how the terrors of Fukushima still haunt the region. Of course, in the Insider article is also even more links to sources! 

Furthermore, there is a link also which shows when the accident took place. Disliking the writer does not make the date of the accident change one bit. It was still, "over a decade ago," with the link to prove it. 

Argo, the statement has merit. 

Now, to highlight the problems that arise from saying, "Well, I don't like that writer so his work is wrong," let us examine how that statement itself is incorrect.

As a society, we have, in many instances, lost track of the fact that the truth is the truth even if the one stating the truth is someone who also happens to share views about that truth which the reader may or may not agree with. 

Read that again. 

This can not be over-stressed. As a matter of fact, this truth has been under-stressed and negated to the point where most readers have been lured into the high obtained from having their figurative bellies rubbed by those who they always agree with while ignoring important truths which are being delivered by those who they may not share such a love for. 

Sure, as any column is prone to do, views and commentary on the facts will be given and, of course, those views can and should be debated. However, to suggest that the facts and truths given which lead to those debates are somehow fake or lacking in merit because the person who delivered those accuracies may be a person who has views about those facts which go against the views of some of the readership is to suggest that facts can change based on who gave them. 

To follow this train (wreck) of thought to its logical conclusion then, if someone did not like CNN's Jim Acosta (which could be understandable), then when he says that Donald Trump was the President in 2019, someone could say, "Oh, I don't trust Acosta, so that is wrong." 

Or, if someone doesn't like Alex Jones and he says that Kamala Harris is the Vice President, is Jones then wrong? Of course not. Facts do not change (though some would argue that the Mandela Effect may challenge this notion). What Jones thinks of Harris, that is up for debate, but facts do not change based on who likes the fact sayer. 

... they also don't change based on readers and others in society who don't take the time to simply follow the links and sources given. Just sayin'...