I care about the strict facts and I want to know how to contextualize the things that thereās no way for them to refute by simple āno we didnāt.ā
While I agree that these are both helpful, I would have been most excited to see a clear separation between careful direct refutations (āhere are several clear examples where Benās post contained demonstrably false claimsā) and fuzzier context (āhere is an explanation why this specific claim from Benās post, while arguably literally true, is pretty misleadingā).
While I agree that these are both helpful, I would have been most excited to see a clear separation between careful direct refutations (āhere are several clear examples where Benās post contained demonstrably false claimsā) and fuzzier context (āhere is an explanation why this specific claim from Benās post, while arguably literally true, is pretty misleadingā).
(But this is hard!)
Agreed that would have been better!