LonelyMy complaint will always be with people, on either side, who will reference organizations and the data they gather, but quickly shift their opinion on whether or not that organization is credible in relation to their bias.
Example 1.
"Look at the CDC reporting on vaccine issues, clearly this vaccine is dangerous as proved in the CDC reports" followed by a statement like "Well, I don't trust the CDCs numbers on infections, those are just made up to push a narrative"
Example 2.
"Cops stop and frisk minorities more according to the justice department. That's really fucked up" followed by "Well the justice department must be lying about the low numbers of fatal cop interactions, probably some sort of cover-up or defense of the police state. all cops just want to kill. ACAB"
I could rattle off like 10 more of these for pretty much any group on the political spectrum
Data should always be taken with a grain of salt, but I feel like more and more people will write off any data that they disagree with, and also never do a deeper analysis of the data that confirms what they think. It is especially frustrating when some people say that an organization is the arbiter of truth when it comes to stuff that agrees with their worldview but are also somehow lying scumbags when the data goes the other way.
I think a lot of people like to say they are critical of the data but they really only are when it is in opposition to their worldview.
I had more hard evidence in mind. Like the Bay of Pigs and operating midnight climax.
From there you get the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and lots of others. Not actually proven, but highly likely.
From that it's hard to believe anything anymore. Data is so easily manipulated to fit the narrative these days and we've now seen this going on in medicine, crime stats and all of it.