Original post in spanish: Nullius in verba: activismo ético en la era de la desinformación

A friend often reacts to my political posts on Facebook from a stance of radical relativism. Convinced that capitalism is the great “enemy,” he downplays abuses by governments he sees as “unaligned,” such as Russia or China, while amplifying criticism when it concerns countries he associates with the “international right.”

This mindset is not isolated. In Latin America, ideological polarization has intensified: according to Latinobarómetro (2023), the percentage of people who place themselves at the extreme ends of the left–right axis rose from 16% in 2013 to 29% in 2023. In other words, almost a third of the population no longer situates itself in the center but at the poles. These categories, although outdated, still serve to forge identity. That can be dangerous when tribal loyalty overrides facts.

I see this as a consequence of certain postmodern currents that slipped out of our control and undermined the notion of objective Truth. While it is legitimate to recover “other knowledges” and “epistemologies of the South,” we must avoid the mistake of treating all ideas as equally valid. That path quickly leads to a kind of self-destruction: eroding the liberal values that made democracy and pluralism of ideas possible, in favor of the imposition of subjective “truths.”

In this context, beyond individual critical thinking, we need actors able to ground public debate in verifiable evidence without surrendering to any side’s narrative. Universities play a role, but so does organized civil society.

As shown in the screenshot, it is easy to find social-media expressions that illustrate the most absurd stances of political postmodernity in Mexico. The messages defend invoking the god Quetzalcoatl during the installation of the new Supreme Court of Justice, claiming that such practices create greater “karmic consequences” in public action:

A clear example of the opposite approach is Amnesty International, which has built its prestige on defending all human rights for all people, regardless of country, party, or leader. Amnesty’s doctrine centers its activism on rigorous research committed to Truth through technical, transparent, and replicable procedures.

One of its most recent reports, Israel’s Extensive Destruction of Southern Lebanon (Amnesty International, 2025), shows how evidence—built through method, verification, and triangulation—prevails over propaganda. The investigation precisely documents more than 10,000 structures destroyed between October 2024 and January 2025. It combines field observation, satellite analysis using change-detection algorithms, digital verification of dozens of public videos (some posted by Israeli soldiers), and multiple interviews with residents and local authorities. Every claim is cross-checked with multiple sources, reaching a high evidentiary standard.

This diligence makes the findings unquestionable beyond sympathies or antipathies: the scale of devastation in villages such as Kfar Kila, Maroun el Ras, or Dhayra can hardly be justified under the notion of “imperative military necessity.” In other words, these are war crimes. This piece of veracity, together with others, reveals a pattern: the Israeli army is committing war crimes not only in Gaza but also in Lebanon.

Therefore, the international community must bring Netanyahu and his cabinet to trial and also demand a restructuring of Israel’s armed forces to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

That is the strength of a well-executed investigation that establishes empirical Truth. By enriching public discussion it allows us, for example, to recognize both that the government led by Netanyahu is committing genocide and that Hamas is a terrorist group that oppresses the Gazan population and has for years sabotaged the possibility of an institutional resolution to the conflict. Both truths, though equally uncomfortable to supporters of each side.

Amnesty International has long documented the region’s realities in all their political complexity. For example, in 2015 it reported war crimes by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians; in 2016 it demanded justice for victims on both sides; in 2022 it formally accused the Israeli state of maintaining an apartheid regime; in 2023 it strongly condemned Hamas attacks; and in 2024 it concluded that genocide is being committed in Gaza.

At this point some readers may feel the urge to stop reading. That discomfort is no accident: it is the emotional reaction of confirmation bias, and for that reason I hope you will read a few more paragraphs.

Cognitive psychology helps explain why the postmodern drift gains ground despite generating disinformation and polarization. People tend to prefer narratives that confirm their beliefs. Confirmation bias leads us to accept uncritically what aligns with our convictions and to reject more harshly what challenges them (Nickerson, 1998).

This explains, for example, why from the start some groups denied Israel the right to defend itself after the criminal terrorist attack of 7 October 2023, in which Hamas killed 1,200 people, wounded many others, and kidnapped 251 hostages. It also explains why, despite the senseless violence of the past two years, some still dismiss or justify the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians killed by indiscriminate Israeli bombardment. The right to self-defense in no way justifies such indiscriminate violence.

Studies of motivated reasoning show that we process political information in biased ways, guided more by identity defense and emotion than by the pursuit of accuracy (Kunda, 1990; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Political relativism is not just a rhetorical strategy: it also reflects cognitive defense mechanisms in each of us, which can have dangerous consequences.

Truth also matters for recognizing that Israeli society itself is the victim of a government that has exploited Hamas terrorism to justify a spiral of violence. Recall that before 7 October, Netanyahu already faced corruption charges and mass protests against his attempt to subjugate the judiciary (BBC News, 2023). Even today, inside and outside Israel, Jewish communities are mobilized to stop these war crimes. Stigmatizing an entire nation for what its government does undermines the effort to build a world after the genocide in Gaza.

That is why reports such as Amnesty International’s on Lebanon matter so much: they bring to the table evidence that is verifiable, replicable, and subject to evidentiary standards. Against the relativism that claims everything is a matter of narrative or perspective, we must remember that reality is independent of the observer and leaves traces that propaganda cannot erase.

In an age of disinformation and polarization, defending Truth is a deeply political act because without truth there can be no justice. It is worth reclaiming the values of Enlightenment modernity and recalling the old motto of the Royal Society: nullius in verba—take nobody’s word for it. Applied to public life, that attitude should be the minimum condition for ethical activism.

Article written in a personal capacity; it does not necessarily reflect the views of Amnesty International.