> I am not disputing the moments before and during.
You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work.
> There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.
Nobody is discussing whether there were "many problems".
We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'.
That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.
> This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed
Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?
You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen.
You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work.
> There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.
Nobody is discussing whether there were "many problems".
We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'.
That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.
> This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed
Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?
You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen.