Don't we recognize the form of these sorts of arguments by now (ones like Silver's)? * Piles of evidence that nobody has time to review (and thus we must rely

Don't we recognize the form of these sorts of arguments by now (ones like Silver's)? * Piles of evidence that nobody has time to review (and thus we must rely on the author, whose credibility somehow increases by having evidence - even though readers rely purely on the author's word) * Extreme one-sidedness of the claims (completely, indisputably, bad) * The neat fit with a politically inflammatory issue, particularly a conspiracy theory, but presented naively - as if the author doesn't mean to take sides. 'I'm just reporting the facts.' * The hyperbole and other emotionally inflamed rhetoric, which leaves no room for serious, nuanced analysis. When I see that form, I don't begin to believe it anymore. I've seen enough, wasted enough of my life. People say, 'well then can you prove it wrong?' I can't, and relying on my lack of time (and reach) is part of how propaganda works - it's far easier to lie than to find the truth. Sometimes that's the intent of piles of evidence. The fact that I can't (or you can't) disprove it is not reason to trust something - are you kidding? It's 2023 and you're still trusting things on the Internet by default? It's true that I might miss a few things, but I miss far more by wasting time trying to study these issues and certainly by allowing myself to trust what very often turns out to be BS.