(November 5, 2022 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(November 5, 2022 at 6:55 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I did judge based on what he said, Boru. I came in with an open mind, and that's all you can really ask for. All of the authors points were ridiculous and the author simply has complete trust in the motives of the government.
The authors main point was basically that there weren't literal documents from the government saying "you better submit to us completely social media companies, or we'll fuck you up good." Well, that generally not how things go in life. When the Mob comes around, they don't have to be so boisterous. A wink and a nod is usually all that's needed for both parties to know what's up.
But first you judge people based on what they say, not who they are. Then, you want to be referred to well-known sources, which is a who-they-are standard.
Which is it?
Boru
I addressed this to Helios. I said I take that back and I'm fine with someone I haven't heard of, but please make it someone other than a meme poster who is making the case that there is no reason to mistrust government motives.
And I like how you just nitpicked at the smallest most irrelevant point in my post and ignored all of the substance where I showed how wrong the author was. How about you debunk the Intercept article for me, Boru? I consider you ten times as intelligent as the source that Helios linked me, so you will be fine to do the job. Which of the points from Helios article do you agree with personally? Do you blanket agree with the entire article?