[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Everybody on both sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow

- Most people decided on the correct narrative without having many facts. They put the story into their picture of the world so that it confirms their views. Their views on race, Florida's "stand your ground" gun laws, how cops behave, gated communities, how black teenagers behave, how juries work, etc. The story must fit into everyone's notions of these things. Even though it didn't happen in a gated community, "stand your ground" was not really relevant to the case, standard black teen behavior has nothing to do with anything at all here, etc.

- When the facts are not consistent with someone's narrative, those facts are ignored, or even changed. People actually rewrite the information so that it fits, and use colorful, emotional language that has nothing to do with the case.

- At some point, almost everyone's information about the case is basically wrong, because everyone they listen to has rewritten the facts to fit.

- For example, in the first 3 days following the event, we heard that "A black man was killed by a white man and the cops just let him go for no reason." This narrative was pushed early and often, and it should give people pause that this opening story was factually wrong and oversimplified. Already the facts are mangled in order to maximize outrage. Many people made up their mind at that point, and everything they've heard since then has been run through their narrative filtering, their opinion left unchanged.

This is the most sweeping generalization I've ever seen you post. Your use of absolutes and imperatives make it practically unreadable. Everybody has... MUST follow ?!?! Really? You speak for Everybody now? Do you include yourself among that number? Are you helplessly following *your* narrative? If that's the case, then we're all predestined to just talk past each other, right? And if it's not, I'd love to hear how you managed to rise above all of this and see all these different sides from outside the frame of reference we all use down here.

It seems your definition of "facts" is different than the one I use. How can facts be changed, say, in the example where they're not consistent with my narrative?

I think the conflict and arguing surrounding this case is much less about facts, and much more about judgements, decisions, feelings, opinions, and attitudes. Facts are objectively knowable. The fuel for the arguments is far more subjective, and when lit with a spark of right or wrong, burns with a righteous fire. THAT'S what's generating the heat here.

I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives. I do like your use of the term "narrative", I think is very appropriate. There are as many narratives as there are observers, and those narratives can include or exclude all kinds of facts, important and unimportant. Discussion about these narratives, defending them, attacking others, changing them (I do believe a person's narrative/opinion can change) is important, is imperative for our community and our society as a whole. Striving for a "correct" narrative is important for most people, though "correct" can be defined in different ways. Factually correct? That's a standard that our judicial system strives toward, and one that many people have an interest in. Emotionally correct, or to use your image, a set of circumstances and descriptions that conform to the conclusion I've already settled on? I think far more people give this kind of correctness the highest priority. Perhaps this is a point we agree on. But I don't agree that everyone picks their conclusion first never changes it, then finds "facts" that support the conclusion, disregarding all the others. There are people who try to let the facts lead to the conclusion.

I don't think that the facts were mangled to maximize outrage, I'm not that much of a cynic. I agree that the facts in cases like this, or Benghazi ffs, are often mangled, especially at the outset and especially when the shape of the story is highly emotional or dramatic. These are the kinds of situations that much media newscasting makes their bank on, "Flashy, breathless, jumpcut! Stay tuned for more after this message!!!11" Ok, consider the source. There can be facts embedded in the dross of commercial news/opinion/media. It takes effort and discernment to suss them out, but it's possible. I can't be on the scene(s), so I depend on reporting to help me gather the information, then I try to assess which parts are actually factually correct, which are not, which are opinion, useful or not, which are hyperbole, which are salesmanship to get me to pay (attention) for something the speaker's selling. It *is* work, but it's the only way I know how to get at what really happened.