• jadero@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will continue to be a major problem as long as we’re stuck with the word “suspected.” According to this, the reason we continue to say “suspected” is because ground penetrating radar cannot be used to unambiguously confirm a burial site. So far, that requires someone to actually dig. Has there been enough digging to verify that the combination of oral history and technology is enough to go on?

    Even for those of us who acknowledge the reality of the various horrors, including this one, we have to eventually stop using the word “suspected” with respect to this particular issue. There is a difference between certainty and proof and we must bridge that gap.

    • Quit_this_instance@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right about using “suspected” too often, but this type of denialism isn’t caused by that. Strengthened perhaps, but these types would always find excuses to deny

      • jadero@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, there will always be extremist denialists, but there will also always be those swayed by actual physical evidence. I think the latter is where our focus should be.