I often tell people that in politics you need to know how to pick your battles. That means knowing which battles aren't in your interest to fight.

This is one of those cases.

I get that you instinctively want to be contrary to the leftists and the media, but do you really want to be the guy who's taking the contrary position to.....sympathy for hundreds of children who were essentially kidnapped, abused and ended up in mass graves? Are you sure that's what you want to be a champion for? That's how you want to be seen by the public? What's that going to do to your credibility?

You need to think these things through, and do it from the point of view of your audience. Even if you win the factual argument here, you lose overall because you get to look like someone who's saying "Akshually, the kidnapping, abuse and mass burial of children' wasn't so bad". You don't want to be that person. Not if you want anyone in your target audience to take you seriously.

Like what exactly are you hoping to gain by "winning" this children's mass grave argument? Alternatively, what do you lose if people don't accept your take on what happened here?

The answer in both cases is absolutely nothing. This matter does not affect you in any way, it does not inform any gov't policy that has any impact on your life, it does not have angry mobs burning down your community. You have nothing to gain from choosing this as your hill to die on, but you have your credibility to lose. If you're smart, you'll leave this one alone, and pick your battles more wisely in the future. You don't have to be arbitrarily contrary to everything the other side says.

I often tell people that in politics you need to know how to pick your battles. That means knowing which battles aren't in your interest to fight.

This is one of those cases.

I get that you instinctively want to be contrary to the leftists and the media, but do you really want to be the guy who's taking the contrary position to.....sympathy for hundreds of children who were essentially kidnapped, abused and ended up in mass graves? Are you sure that's what you want to be a champion for? That's how you want to be seen by the public? What's that going to do to your credibility?

You need to think these things through, and do it from the point of view of your audience. Even if you win the factual argument here, you lose overall because you get to look like someone who's saying "Akshually, the kidnapping, abuse and mass burial of children' wasn't so bad". You don't want to be that person. Not if you want anyone in your target audience to take you seriously.

Like what exactly are you hoping to gain by "winning" this children's mass grave argument? Alternatively, what do you lose if people don't accept your take on what happened here?

The answer in both cases is absolutely nothing. This matter does not affect you in any way, it does not inform any gov't policy that has any impact on your life, it does not have angry mobs burning down your community. You have nothing to gain from choosing this as your hill to die on, but you have your credibility to lose. If you're smart, you'll leave this one alone, and pick your battles more wisely in the future. You don't have to be arbitrarily contrary to everything the other side says.