That doesn't mean you are a disinfo agent. Cos sometimes I still disagree. Tho I don't think everyone shares this attitude.
There is a real tendency for people to assume those who disagree with them are disinfo agents. Thats a fundamentalist tendency IMO. It enables people to be all papal and write off opposing idea's as heretical and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
I assume we are all adults here capable of making up our own minds:
PAC wrote:
I'm not so naive as to think that it doesn't happen on some level, because I know it does. My question is: why does it matter? If people are so afraid of being influenced by someone else's words, then they're probably resting on a very fragile foundation in the first place.
Then wintler wrote:
We all have user IDs so we can learn from direct observation, each of us must find it a useful exercise on some level or we wouldn't be here. I am frankly suspicious of arguments that we shouldn't care about sabotage.
At what point is sabotage deliberate?
That thread on the silent ponds, now to me touching on the effect of some herbicides on amphibians, then writing the whole thing off as mold and the thread going in a different direction, about the spread and return of other native animals.
That to me is disinfo in action, tho I very much doubt anyone on the thread works for or supports herbicide manufacturers.
And the reality is that the dynamics of the discussion and the interests of those posting have led the discussion in a different direction. To my mind a major factor in the silence of ponds and springs has slipped by without being fully exposed or delved into. But you know that happens with a discussion.
It would be easy to get paranoid and invent an ulterior motive for the discussion going that way when in reality the reason is probably simple. That direction was the one that interested the participants the most, and had the most relevence to them.
I get the impression that there are people here who think I am a disinfo agent. Not necessarily on a payroll, just someone who gets off on stirring up trouble.
Thats your choice people, but disagreeing with fundamentalism in any form does not make someone a disinfo artist.
History, and herstory for that matter, are full of people who ignore other "red herrings" and "distractions" to their own cost.
Usually those people think they have the full and complete story beforehand and anything contradictory, that reality throws up, is disinformation.
Or the devil leading us astray or some other rubbish.
I can think of a few other posters who had this disinfo charge implied about them, when all they have called for is a little critical thinking.
And in the cases where the red herrings and distractions are just that, often they are due to the fact that the so called disinfo agent is just stupid or at the least unable to accurately describe reality.
I guess the point is that people should be able to think for themselves and evaluate information on its own merits, the disinfo misinfo truth thing just leads to dodgy thought.
Everything is disinfo, as every piece of info has an agenda, or nothing is, and must be evaluated in relation to facts and experience on its own merits. Otherwise the prepositons run the risk of becoming more important than the data.
