Then we get pictures of the My Lai massacre, or Abu Ghraib, or video of Rodney King and George Floyd. Actually your fringe tends to argue nothing wrong happened with Rodney King or George Floyd, or they were asking for it, fueling fires of the inevitable upheavals that follow.
And most people said it was horrible.
What you're saying, to me, sounds like people were skeptical when there was no evidence but then evidence came out. Then you leave out that a lot of people's minds were changed with evidence.
He's responding to someone saying "I'm surprised there's not video/audio" and responds by saying "it won't change the fringe's mind"?
It will change a lot of people's minds, just like it did in all of those incidents he named.
Whereas you and I can watch the Rodney King footage and see the plain truth that the cops beat the shit out of King without cause, there will always be quislings spreading FUD.
But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is sufficient for most people. Where does convincing the "fringe" come in? Is he accusing his parent of being "fringe" for noting a lack of evidence in a context where it should be trivial to gather?
> It'd be cool if there was any evidence at all.
> You can't convince the fringe with evidence!
It's non-sequitur.
Especially these days with social media, so many outlandish stories turn out not to be true. Not having doubt creates incentives to lie more.
But I'd agree that you don't want to be extreme in disbelief either.