Shachar Haad
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

This is precisely the kind of statement that doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

I agree. It’s the “I am rubber, you are glue” defense. Unfortunately, in major parts of the political discourse, this seems to be the argument that makes one’s point come across. Much of it is about nuance that no one cares to take into account — on all sides.

Nobody can know and tally every lie in public discourse.

You don’t really need to. Look at the coverage of the lies and how they are being presented to get the overall picture.

There was an entire debate about the number of people in Trump’s inauguration ceremony, as though that lie has any importance whatsoever. Yes, it was a lie but it was a pointless lie that doesn’t change anything about Trump, his politics, the reason he won, it didn’t shed light on the reasons people voted for him, and it didn’t really matter. It was just another reason to bash him for lying about a non-issue.

It would make much more sense to try and understand what motivates people who disagree with your views, and stop labelling as “facts” what are your personal value judgements.

This is where I’ll point you to the article I responded to. The assertion made in the article is that Trump lies, only Trump, and everything that happened in the 2016 election cycle were based on lies told by one side.

In reality, both sides lied, both sides told half-truths (that are much more severe than outright lies), and both sides tried to deceive the people who later voted for or against them. The true issue here is that people don’t really care about the lies as long as they agree with them.

Defending Trump’s lies is pointless the same as defending Clinton’s lies. The point I was trying (and failing) to get across is that you can’t look at the opposition and conclude whatever makes you feel better.