Dope name. I will follow you past the Cardies’ lines and back.

I grant you, I have my walls up more today than I did ten years ago, but if someone proves me wrong with good data, then I accept that. I just scrutinize my opposition more than my allies, which could be a flaw, but if I’m changing my outlook, I want it to be because of facts, not propaganda.

Very cool that some of the old-school meetings let the infiltrators stay. I honestly didn’t know that. But it’s harder to make that tactic effective in an online environment. The stakes are lower and higher at the same time because you can disarm them in person. Here, they can send people down pipelines that they may never come back from.

This is a good point. engagement itself will increase visibility. The best way to win is not to play…

Too many people, likely including you, use the desire for free and open discussion as a smokescreen to spread misinformation and lies. Worse, we are entering a period of history where well-documented and proven events are being rewritten and erased by bad actors with money. This turns our desire to educate others against us, as the sources of truth are erased and anyone on the fence inevitably ends up finding those new fake sources more credible.

So yes, ban them. After a decent number of warnings about sources and references, they should be banned for spreading bad science. It shouldn’t be instant, but it should happen. You can have an open-door policy without allowing people to scream against your interests.

Do you think old-school socialists, anarchists, and communists just let Pinkertons and FBI agents stay in the meeting and push for bad decisions?

I feel so lucky to have come up on the internet when I did. It was the sweet spot of getting unfiltered news and reports before authoritarian governments and think-tanks started censoring and pumping false information. Back in like 2008, Russian influencers were really saying somethings.

Anyway, I agree.