3 ms·

That's a pretty bad and random comment of a kind I didn't expect here. What does this have to do with anything? Attack the argument.

• chowells 3y ago
  When the person making the argument has a history of acting in bad faith, that's relevant to the argument.
  • ekianjo 3y ago
    no that is just called ad hominem
    • arp242 3y ago
      No one wakes up every day with a clean slate, having forgotten everyone who lied and cheated to them in the past. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Journalistic reporting depends on some degree of trust. I can't go verify everything I read – I don't have the time, means, or interest. No one does that. I feel that in the past Greenwald has demonstrated to be unreliable because he views the world too much through an ideological lens. Everyone does that with certain outlets and people.
      • ekianjo 3y ago
        Every journalist nowadays has an ideological lens so who do you trust in the end ?
        • arp242 3y ago
          That is not a good faith reading of what was said; the words "too much" have meaning. Good day.
• ants_everywhere 3y ago
  Have you ever debated with a propaganda account? It's worth doing at least once if you haven't. It gives you a sense of how they work. I've seen no research to suggest that point-by-point reputations of propaganda accounts are effective. Usually it's better to just draw attention to what's happening and move on. The whole idea of this kind of propaganda is that bs is cheap to generate. You can a/b test it and go with what gains traction. Most people don't have the intellectual background on any given topic to form an informed opinion anyway. And you can shore up even the craziest ideas with "social proof" by deploying additional propaganda accounts to agree with the original. So I don't think "attack the argument" is effective for this sort of thing. I do think it's important in general when dealing with good faith participants who want to learn things and are willing to change their minds