None of that backs the claim that Harry Truman lied.
I still think you have good intentions and believe this, I certainly cannot falsify your claim just because I can't prove it.
TL;DR for following section: a good reset point when you start getting challenge would be stating your claim in a sentence, paragraph max, then providing a sentence, paragraph, max two paragraphs, that back it up, and a link or two out to the source.
Breaking the onboarding flow for this idea into discrete, easy to follow steps that lure the interlocutor along always keeps the temperature low
If I had to hazard a guess why people reacted strongly to the claim:
A) it's much more likely the popular narrative, especially as history progressed, exaggerated the situation than an ex-president made claims about his finances that are falsifiable
B) when arguing an extreme position, especially after the initial round of reactions noting it's extreme, it's better to take due care to link a one sentence claim you have to a paragraph that backs up the claim. Making people weed through a dense Wikipedia article section, then a long comment, neither providing anything that helps put ground under the claim, would reinforce the idea the claimant is mistaken
How does Campos's paper not back the claim? Which of his evidence was insufficient?
Again, this time with Truman's lies highlighted: "Truman made another fortune after he left the presidency, by doing precisely what he claimed he was not doing, that is, exploiting his status as a former president to maximum economic advantage. Indeed, by the time Congress passed the FPA in response to Truman’s various claims that he was at least teetering on the brink of potential financial distress, Truman’s net worth was, in relative economic terms, approximately $72 million in 2021 dollars."
> Making people weed through a dense Wikipedia article section, then a long comment, neither providing anything that helps put ground under the claim, would reinforce the idea the claimant is mistaken
All you've done is be dismissive, using meta-argument rather than presenting counter-evidence.
My comment highlighted parts from Campos's paper showing A) Truman lied about his finances, B) how the popular conception came to be, and C) mentioning how some of the evidence was only recently open to researchers.
I still think you have good intentions and believe this, I certainly cannot falsify your claim just because I can't prove it.
TL;DR for following section: a good reset point when you start getting challenge would be stating your claim in a sentence, paragraph max, then providing a sentence, paragraph, max two paragraphs, that back it up, and a link or two out to the source.
Breaking the onboarding flow for this idea into discrete, easy to follow steps that lure the interlocutor along always keeps the temperature low
If I had to hazard a guess why people reacted strongly to the claim:
A) it's much more likely the popular narrative, especially as history progressed, exaggerated the situation than an ex-president made claims about his finances that are falsifiable
B) when arguing an extreme position, especially after the initial round of reactions noting it's extreme, it's better to take due care to link a one sentence claim you have to a paragraph that backs up the claim. Making people weed through a dense Wikipedia article section, then a long comment, neither providing anything that helps put ground under the claim, would reinforce the idea the claimant is mistaken