The problem is, even as a concept, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I've given several examples of factually accurate statements which remain factually accurate no matter how many other facts are omitted or included.
Just like the Sprinter example I used, now you're getting into a "lie by omission," when an important fact is omitted intentionally to deceive, which is a thing.
All this goes back to your assertion that the author of the article "completely" misrepresented the facts of the Ferguson case, which is not only incorrect, but "completely" ironic because in the the same sentence, you "completely" misrepresented his conclusions when you added "evil" in front of "American police and grand juries." Yours was not a lie by omission, it was a straight-up fabrication intended to mislead, to demonize the author, simply because you don't like the article or the conclusions. In the next post, post #41, I noted that everything he stated that paragraph is factually accurate, because it is. It just isn't as "factually all-encompassing" as you'd like it to be, and that's when you invented the "factually inaccurate by omission" gem. You want to equate that paragraph to a lie by omission, but it isn't even that, because the paragraph doesn't tell a lie, it merely doesn't tell the story you want told. The paragraph isn't central to the article, and the all-important facts you think were left out are even less important to the article. But we've already been over this. You think the author should have written a different article on a different subject. We all get that.
In the context you have created in your mind, you are probably correct, the premise cannot be defended. However, in the context of the time frame of the article, which is the context of the entire history of America, the premise is spot on. And you're also right in that no, he doesn't offer up statistics to support his claim of "countless thousands" of instances of racial injustice at the hands of law enforcement. He doesn't have to, since the historical record is quite clear on that issue. You want to pigeonhole this into term of today, or the recent past (because you kinda need to in order to make your case), but it goes back hundreds of years. No, he didn't mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean he ignored it. He didn't need to mention it, because it's all a part of the same context. You do realize, don't you. that one of the primary motivators for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being enacted was because of the Jim Crow laws, and the fact that law enforcement (primarily, but not exclusively in the South) was routinely discriminating and brutalizing blacks, including killing them, looking the other way when others killed them, and were involved in many blacks just up and disappearing, permanently. A mere 1000 is the ultra-conservative number. Multiple thousands with an S is far more accurate phrasing.
I just wanted to quote that because it's so funny.
Quoted this one for the same reason.
