How about responding to the words I wrote instead of the ones you imagined? I did not advocate "upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists." I hav

How about responding to the words I wrote instead of the ones you imagined? I did not advocate "upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists." I have advocated two things: 1. Not flagging/censoring/de-platforming people for their screwy opinions. Most people aren't stupid, and can assess statements well enough without your assistance. If you downvoted him because you disagree, great! That's what votes are for. However, flagging this is an abuse. His synopsis was mostly consistent with the research, and there was nothing uncivil in his "blithering." 2. If an idea is incorrect, attack the idea, not the person. Going after the guy's politics and his (lack of) credentials is just a lazy, thinly-veiled, ad hominem when the idea is of an objective nature. And if you are going to ding him on credentials (not that you should), what exactly are yours?