Can we at least agree to this?

[majj27]

Opinions do vary, but it is quite possible to hold an opinion that is flat out wrong.

 

[USincognito]

I disagree because Internet Warriors throw around "evidence please" for the most ridiculous of statements, things everyone might simply take for granted. If I cite something like that, and you're not sure, Google is your friend. Otherwise, it's Internet Tinker Toys for the warriors to play with.

Additionally, this is not a court of law. It's a place for discussion.

"Go look it up yourself" is not conducive to discussion.

 

[majj27]

"Go look it up yourself" is not conducive to discussion.

Citation?

*I'll get my coat*

 

[cow451]

On a related note, in regards to supporting your evidence, if you source that Wolff guy's book (or a source which does so), then you should be figuratively shot out of a cannon from this sub-forum.

Michael Wolff note says he doesn't know if Trump book is all true - B…

The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.
Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

It is helpful if people could have a better understanding of journalism and media. Wolff wrote about what he heard. If Joe WH staffer said to Wolff that Ivanka said her Father said XYZ, that means that. The truth is what he heard. Whether Ivanka actually said that can be debated as to whether she said it, said it but didn’t mean it, or said it but it was taken out of context.

That is different that someone saying that 43% of Americans do X. That claim should be substantiated with something, even if it’s SGOYT.

I suspect some posters don’t know such things

 

[majj27]

"SGOYT"? Solitaire Games At Your Table?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Go look it up yourself" is not conducive to discussion.

Maybe that's the best response to someone woefully uninformed about the topic.

 

[RogerRoger]

"SGOYT"? Solitaire Games At Your Table?

Some guys only yearn thusly?

 

[USincognito]

I definitely sympathize with you, people do take advantage, and do troll, and there's even evidence out there to suggest that some people are PAID to troll.

I'm not trying to be ironic here, but please, do go on. I'd love to see some of this evidence, especially for this forum.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Opinions do vary, but it is quite possible to hold an opinion that is flat out wrong.

"Opinions are like 'backsides'. Everybody has one."

 

[JGG]

True. If I don't back it up you are free to reject it. I'll happily take responsibility for that.

Then you agree to the terms! We won't have to put you on ignore.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you agree to the terms! We won't have to put you on ignore.

?

 

[JGG]

Maybe that's the best response to someone woefully uninformed about the topic.

Not if it's part of your claim. If it's something barely related, maybe.

 

[High Fidelity]

It's particularly common in political discussion for people entrenched in a particular ideology to repeat soundbites with little to no context because it fits the narrative they're comfortable with.

There's a good saying: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[RogerRoger]

I'm not trying to be ironic here, but please, do go on. I'd love to see some of this evidence, especially for this forum.

It's really fascinating stuff.

• There's the supposed Russian Troll Factory (awesome name), and it's links to paid protesting
• Another one
• Here's a good PBS video on this
• Here's an ArsTechnica article, with links to more technical resources outlining how twitter bot nets are tracked
• An interesting quote from the National Post (Canada's most conservative of the main national papers)

"Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers."​

• Here's a NATO study done on Russian paid trolls, and their influence on Crimea and Latvia (PDF download). A quote (emphasis mine):

"Indeed, it is clear that the information war against Ukraine has been overwhelming. That is not to say that pro-Russian trolls have succeeded in turning everybody pro-Russian, but they have definitely succeeded in creating a completely unreliable information space at all levels of society. For example, on 14 July, the Twitter accounts of Petro Poroshenko’s Presidential Administration and Interior Minister Arsen Aavkov were hacked. The hackers used the accounts to post tweets against the Ukrainian nationalist organization Pravy Sektor, which is actively engaged in fighting in Ukraine. Such actions were most likely aimed at causing controversy among pro-Ukrainian forces.
​

The research is highly suggestive, and actually really really interesting, especially when you get into things like bot nets, and how they are tracked using swarm dynamics.

They're not necessarily trying to change someone's mind (although that's a plus), but one of the main goals is to sow doubt and discontent, especially between populations and the news "establishment". You can see this come into play by (warning: think progress article) examining what known bot-nets have been doing since the election.

This stuff is endlessly fascinating.

 

[USincognito]

On a related note, in regards to supporting your evidence, if you source that Wolff guy's book (or a source which does so), then you should be figuratively shot out of a cannon from this sub-forum.

Michael Wolff note says he doesn't know if Trump book is all true - B…

The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.
Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

I have a feeling that some (not you) will dismiss every jot and tiddle of this book while continuing to repeat as truth that LBJ said disparaging things about the African American vote on a plane.

 

[USincognito]

It's really fascinating stuff.

Thank you for going above and beyond what I was asking for. I was aware of Russian and other eastern European troll operations. I've read that Albania is a hub of activity where you have trained but unempolyed IT professionals paying their bills by writing bot scripts.

I thought you were referring to something else though.

 

[hislegacy]

Okay. But to be clear, I shouldn't expect you to be held to this standard?

So I should also not hold you to this standard?

So we should not hold you to this standard?

Can you please cite the source of your authority that allows you to not only set standards, but then keep people to those said standards?

What evidence do you have that your standards are valid?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[hislegacy]

Then you agree to the terms! We won't have to put you on ignore.

Who is we? And again what authority do you have on CF to set terms for anything?

 

[RogerRoger]

Thank you for going above and beyond what I was asking for. I was aware of Russian and other eastern European troll operations. I've read that Albania is a hub of activity where you have trained but unempolyed IT professionals paying their bills by writing bot scripts.

I thought you were referring to something else though.

It should be noted that in some of those sources, the discussion isn't limited to botnets or spam, but paying people to sit around and comment on facebook, reddit, newspaper comment sections, etc.

 

[rambot]

Its funny. In my view i find that too many people on CF have such an inflated opinion of themselves or what they claim that they call it "common sense" or feel it is beneath them to spend time to prove what they say is true. Ive had posters say it was common sense that there was a massive worldwide conspiracy over AGW. Now, while id agree that a conspiracy exists as a belief, they dont bother to put up a link and it certainly isnt a common sense argument to suggest it is true. So i dont buy the common sense angle....besides, even common sense can be sourced (and lastly, theres no such thing really anyways).

Fwiw, you can provide an answer to the question of why the sky is blue with a 10 second google search

Ive also heard posters say they arent "going to waste their time" on citing. Funny they are willing to waste time sharing their tripe but arent willing to invest 30 seconds to show it isnt tripe.
.