Something struck me about part of D's comment: "Milov is just a professor in the US university"... That's not a native English speaker, there, more likely from Russia or a Slavic country, or perhaps China. Their sole purpose is to divide people over here against each other, it's a kind of information warfare. They're time-wasters, and tr…
Something struck me about part of D's comment: "Milov is just a professor in the US university"... That's not a native English speaker, there, more likely from Russia or a Slavic country, or perhaps China. Their sole purpose is to divide people over here against each other, it's a kind of information warfare. They're time-wasters, and try to get arguments going. And they may use sock-puppet accounts. They're not pushing any particular narrative, they're just trying to provoke a fight. The best thing to do is to ban them from commenting, and delete their comment(s). It's been going on for quite some time - https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/09/distinguishing-true-false-fakes-forgeries-russias-information-war-ukraine/, amongst others. As you get more readers, you'll probably see more of this.
I've gotten involved with such posters who clearly have an agenda. But it's also clear via the language expressions that they are not typical. Don't know how organized they are but it seems they aren't making much headway.
In one area they want to portray Russia as a certain winner; that Ukraine has no chance. In other cases they wish to insist that the virus came from US labs. The ones insisting on the vaccine was OK have just disappeared.
I've posted a reply in opposition to what MAA has said before, but I've at least cited evidence and given an argument, this poster didn't do that, it was just an attack. I don't hesitate to ban people who do that, I don't tolerate them. Civil argument with evidence is fine, ad hominem is not.
Hey, on my Substack page, I have certain rules and I enforce them. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. I'm looking for civil arguments with cites and evidence which inform and educate the people who see them, not flame wars which just titillate people. I'm not running an Outrage Machine.
Something struck me about part of D's comment: "Milov is just a professor in the US university"... That's not a native English speaker, there, more likely from Russia or a Slavic country, or perhaps China. Their sole purpose is to divide people over here against each other, it's a kind of information warfare. They're time-wasters, and try to get arguments going. And they may use sock-puppet accounts. They're not pushing any particular narrative, they're just trying to provoke a fight. The best thing to do is to ban them from commenting, and delete their comment(s). It's been going on for quite some time - https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/09/distinguishing-true-false-fakes-forgeries-russias-information-war-ukraine/, amongst others. As you get more readers, you'll probably see more of this.
Note that "Milov is just a professor in the US university" is not in quote marks.
Own goal there. I'll vouch for MAA though, she's not a foreign spy.
I've gotten involved with such posters who clearly have an agenda. But it's also clear via the language expressions that they are not typical. Don't know how organized they are but it seems they aren't making much headway.
what is their agenda??
The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves. —Vladimir Lenin
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. —Thomas Paine
In one area they want to portray Russia as a certain winner; that Ukraine has no chance. In other cases they wish to insist that the virus came from US labs. The ones insisting on the vaccine was OK have just disappeared.
On Twitter the counters seem to arrive in storms.
in your words? lets shut up those who challenge, think differently?
I've posted a reply in opposition to what MAA has said before, but I've at least cited evidence and given an argument, this poster didn't do that, it was just an attack. I don't hesitate to ban people who do that, I don't tolerate them. Civil argument with evidence is fine, ad hominem is not.
"you dont tolerate" "you ban" --where did you amass such power!!
btw...
i do not see a "civil" argument ... i dont know you or MAA but this Ds argument is happening around us...
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. —Thomas Paine
Hey, on my Substack page, I have certain rules and I enforce them. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. I'm looking for civil arguments with cites and evidence which inform and educate the people who see them, not flame wars which just titillate people. I'm not running an Outrage Machine.
DEFINE YOUR RULES as you come off as a leftist censor... what is your page of censorship - i will run from it..