“ Russian trolls targeted ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ online to online to amplify discontent: report “ by Morgan GSTATER on The Hill

This is an article about a study that claims the backlash against The Last Jedi was perpetrated by Russia. He concluded this after noticing that more than half of the dislikes were from “ bots, trolls/socks puppets or political activists” . This study is ridiculous. It’s clearly counting people that aren’t working for Russian intelligence.

http://archive.today/X6wXr

“ Brett Kavanaugh and the information terrorists trying to reshape America “ by Molly McKew on Wired

This article claims that people supporting Kavanaugh, and people who have been involved in Gamergate are information terrorist. He argues that spreading information can literally be terrorism. It specifically credits Gamergate as being original terrorist organization. The ride never ends.

http://archive.today/T7x6D

man that debate in <#418657008409903105> was dumb wish I could talk in there for that

both peeps were switching the conversation to diff things really quickly

thanks

but he guided it

I did the debate

you were more coherent

meaning?

Meaning I agree, I think both of you could have stayed on a single point a little better but you're right he was guiding you in and out of diff subjects quickly

Doesn't make for good conversation

thats how you debate them, let them guide it to where they feel confident no matter the original, and keep up the work until you end up them wanting to leave or at the original point

Not sure who you mean by "them," and idk that can sometimes lead to understanding, but based on that comment it seems like your goal isn't mutual understanding but them wanting to leave

or back to square one like you say

The goal is for them to have nothing left to debate and to see your reasoning in the end

them leaving often means they have nothing left

if they admit you changed their POV, you certainly are a god

Do you think they see your reasoning in the end or do you think they are frustrated?

hahaha yeah for sure

I just think there's a subtle but crucial difference between debating for understanding and debating for winning

mutual compassion vs tribalism

good faith vs bad faith

not accusing you of being on either end of the spectrum btw just musing on this

I think many begin to, and both really, but many don't admit defeat. I debate for understanding initially, but should it come to it simply winning. If you can make them see your point at the start, amazing, but should you be diminished to what I was there, you simply debate to win, at that point they may have simply seen your point and refused to admit, or simply were always debating to win

bad for good really

I think that will make people dig their heels in more

You will end up with very stubborn debaters on both ends of the spectrum...which is exactly how we got here

here being the modern political climate

well I see the point

Problem with the modern climate is we have those that believe what their told by a mob, and those that believe in the truth and what they can find out themselves. They both see themselves are right and the other wrong, trick is understanding by winning

But you know both sides think that right? How do you not see that that behavior is mirrored by democrats and republicans, and is harmful?

Winning is inconsequential

winning is inconsequential if its traded

traded for what?

for a win on the other side

recently with the #walkaway people have been leaving the democratic party and spreading the word from endless right winged wins

its like warfare

you can't win by killing a soldier, you win by breaking an army

I guess, I don't see that as compelling evidence for what we're talking about. the #walkaway thing feels incredibly viral and unrelated to how many republican and democratic voters there actually are. There's also tons of reports that democratic voter registration is surging, does that count as winning? Why would that count as winning if the goal is a better america? We should identify goals for our country to move towards, and moving towards those goals should be "winning," not cucking the libs or whatever

I guess I'm just thrown off by the phrase winning. Feels incredibly juvenile, like politics are just sports that don't actually impact peoples lives.

well winning for one side would be a subjectively better america though may have its own problems, winning on the other side is subjectively better for america and may have its own problems