Don't assume anything is the truth. You have to be skeptical. Now my claim in this instance is that the media doesn't report about the UK's role in Yemen at all. Declassified UK does and they provide evidence. But don't take them or anyone else as gospel.

I am not in the UK. US mainstream media does produce plenty of criticism on US involvement

Why do you seem to be assuming it isn't? What's more, if you're talking about Israel, Palestine, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, that stuff is all out there in reputable news sources that most people don't even bother to read.

Why do you use ad hominem to attack my arguments? The identity of the speaker has no bearing on the validity or truth of the argument. You also have no idea how "western" I am or am not.

Going by your opinions, username and fluency in English it would be very unusual for you not to be western. We can roll our eyes and pretend things are more complicated than they are, or just acknowledge that a person from the other side of the world learns about these conflicts and narrative from second or third hand - all he can do is choose those hands (to some extent, media manipulation and all).

So talking about absolute truths that are hidden from others is a bit pretentious in this context.

Again, what does pretention, or lack thereof, have to do with the truth or validity of my argument? You're doing it again.

Who ever mentioned "absolute," or "hidden" truths, either? That's called "straw manning," and I would appreciate it if you would stop.

You're saying I can't know anything of the "truth" in these places without literally having gone there? Well, that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Do you even know how to argue logically? Three sentences in your comment, and 3 logical fallacies? Come on. Be real.

Anyone who deals in absolutes either acts in bad faith or lacks maturity or intellect. That being said, when bad actors like SA don't get called out by our politicians, this kind of narrative is passively incentivized. What's happening in Yemen is a tragedy from a human and from a humanistic pov, and it is very obviously underreported in what we call mainstream media. That doesn't do the topic justice, and in a polarized world, to do the topic justice may well be called "to say the truth". Obviously that doesn't help with the polarized state of things, but there is sound emotion (heh) behind the analogy

> Anyone who deals in absolutes either acts in bad faith or lacks maturity or intellect.

Quite an absolute trichotomy.

It makes people feel smart and special.

Because people have been trained to believe the mainstream produces nothing but lies and propaganda, and that the truth can only be found elsewhere, and because modern social-media driven culture doesn't allow for the nuance necessary for proper critical thought and honest skepticism.

Are you of the opinion that the bulk of mainstream journalism, like what is shown on the 6 o'clock news, contains the nuance and balance necessary for proper critical thought and honest skepticism?

I'm of the opinion that critical thought and honest skepticism should be applied equally to both mainstream and alternative media, because in modern reality both are essentially the same and can be undermined by the same biases, incentives and narrative distortions.

Simply assuming the mainstream media is lying all the time and every conspiracy theory is probably true is lazy cynicism.

You seem to have answered a question other than the one I asked.

What you said about social media is absolutely true wrt to trying to have nuanced conversations. It is not true when it comes to fact gathering. For example, my own opinion of Khashoggi changed when I read twitter posts from people I follow for completely unrelated reasons but who happen to have known him personally.

This is a rather bizarre and kind of scary comment to be honest. It suggests that one's opinion about torture and murder depends on the individual being tortured rather than on the one doing the torture.

I really don't care one bit about Khashoggi, one way or another, and no Twitter post about him could ever make me change my mind that torturing and murdering him is categorically wrong.

What do you mean "changed?" What was your opinion before and then after reading these Twitter posts?

Before - saudis murdered a martyr for journalistic freedom. After - barbaric power struggle spilled out of Saudi Arabia and claimed one of the players as victim

Fair enough. Kashoggi most definitely was not just any journalist. Either interpretation reflects pretty horrible on the Saudi royal family though.

Yo you might want to take a long hard look at yourself if you're cool with torturing and murdering anyone.