Yes, you also repeatedly deny knowledge of the very world events you continually post articles promoting and spreading propaganda for (here we go again).
I gotta say, since I already spent way too much time re-reading this conversation. As much as I don’t agree with @[email protected]’s extrapolation of previous facts into how they apply for this conversation today. They make a clear arguement, based in the reality we all live in and back it up with how they got there.
Even looking over their post history, I find plenty of strong arguments they bring to conversations that I tend to agree with from my understanding of the world today. Once again, I don’t agree with what they are saying here, but I don’t believe this behavior is “trolling”. If we want open discourse people need to be able to have strong opinions regardless of how much everyone else agrees.
That’s my take, too, except for the part about looking at @surph_ninja’s (or anyone’s) post history. Life is too short and this thread too unimportant for such investigations.
Fair, life is too short for a lot that I do online, but I’m cursed with a day job that requires me in front of the computer all day and find looking over the comment/post history of a user can be helpful when trying to determine if I would consider them a troll worth blocking and never listening to again.
Yeah. It’s sort of sad that the nature of the network is such that it’s sometimes necessary to invest some effort in figuring out what the history is, of the person you’re talking to, whether they’re coming from a place of conversation or a place of broadcasting a bad-faith argument to distort the conversation, but them’s the breaks. I think it’s necessary sometimes to be a pain in the ass about these types of minor annoyances, or else they’ll take over and the whole place will be populated with only annoyance instead of real conversation between humans.
What do you think your post history says about you? What impression do you think people get from continually pushing US propaganda, telling other people not to engage with people or read sources that counter your narrative, and attacking everyone who disagrees with ad hominems?
Better yet, what do you think your constant comments on strategies for running bots is making people think? You really believe people are stupid enough to think, ‘gee, surely if he was an astroturfer he wouldn’t be telling people exactly how to astroturf.’ Hanging a lantern on it isn’t the brilliant strategy you seem to believe it to be.
Oops, you’re right, I need to make some smokescreen posts. I posted a B movie to a media community just now. Maybe too much effort, though. It took a few minutes, I could have spent that on like 5 random memes I found on the internet thrown around in a meme community.
Why don’t you tell us again what geopolitical conclusions you’re trying to draw from a scientific study to understand the extended continental shelf (consistent with established international law) and the fact that using ammunition uses ammunition?Those simple facts don’t support anything you’re talking about with respect to the MIC and some grand plot to annex land and weaken allies. Since that’s plainly obvious you’re either a troll or just that dumb. I won’t be posting more to you on this and providing more feedstock.
And you apply that standard across the board, correct? You support China and Russia expanding their claims farther out to sea, and no western exceptionalism?
Yes, you also repeatedly deny knowledge of the very world events you continually post articles promoting and spreading propaganda for (here we go again).
You’re an astroturfing propagandist.
Stupid and gullible I’ll tolerate here, but you’re starting to smell like a troll. Change my mind.
I gotta say, since I already spent way too much time re-reading this conversation. As much as I don’t agree with @[email protected]’s extrapolation of previous facts into how they apply for this conversation today. They make a clear arguement, based in the reality we all live in and back it up with how they got there. Even looking over their post history, I find plenty of strong arguments they bring to conversations that I tend to agree with from my understanding of the world today. Once again, I don’t agree with what they are saying here, but I don’t believe this behavior is “trolling”. If we want open discourse people need to be able to have strong opinions regardless of how much everyone else agrees.
That’s my take, too, except for the part about looking at @surph_ninja’s (or anyone’s) post history. Life is too short and this thread too unimportant for such investigations.
Fair, life is too short for a lot that I do online, but I’m cursed with a day job that requires me in front of the computer all day and find looking over the comment/post history of a user can be helpful when trying to determine if I would consider them a troll worth blocking and never listening to again.
Yeah. It’s sort of sad that the nature of the network is such that it’s sometimes necessary to invest some effort in figuring out what the history is, of the person you’re talking to, whether they’re coming from a place of conversation or a place of broadcasting a bad-faith argument to distort the conversation, but them’s the breaks. I think it’s necessary sometimes to be a pain in the ass about these types of minor annoyances, or else they’ll take over and the whole place will be populated with only annoyance instead of real conversation between humans.
What do you think your post history says about you? What impression do you think people get from continually pushing US propaganda, telling other people not to engage with people or read sources that counter your narrative, and attacking everyone who disagrees with ad hominems?
Better yet, what do you think your constant comments on strategies for running bots is making people think? You really believe people are stupid enough to think, ‘gee, surely if he was an astroturfer he wouldn’t be telling people exactly how to astroturf.’ Hanging a lantern on it isn’t the brilliant strategy you seem to believe it to be.
Oops, you’re right, I need to make some smokescreen posts. I posted a B movie to a media community just now. Maybe too much effort, though. It took a few minutes, I could have spent that on like 5 random memes I found on the internet thrown around in a meme community.
Trolls don’t provide sources.
Some trolls don’t. Other trolls provide links that don’t remotely support the conclusions they purport as facts. You’re the latter.
What have I said that’s untrue? What did I claim that’s not supported in my sources?
Why don’t you tell us again what geopolitical conclusions you’re trying to draw from a scientific study to understand the extended continental shelf (consistent with established international law) and the fact that using ammunition uses ammunition?Those simple facts don’t support anything you’re talking about with respect to the MIC and some grand plot to annex land and weaken allies. Since that’s plainly obvious you’re either a troll or just that dumb. I won’t be posting more to you on this and providing more feedstock.
And you apply that standard across the board, correct? You support China and Russia expanding their claims farther out to sea, and no western exceptionalism?
Yes they absolutely do. (Source)
You’ve got the ‘outrgageous’ mastered, but can you say something amusing, interesting, or profound?