[aristocles]

This is propaganda from intelligence agencies. The "RUSSIAN TROLLING" is an organic movement of right-wring nationalism that is building in America.

Russians may have tried to stoke the flames of the divide in America, but its real, and its here.

[slabity]

> This is propaganda from intelligence agencies.

What is? This article? The source? Or the arguments in general?

Claims like this require hard evidence provided in the same context, or they will be dismissed outright.

[lumberjack]

There is no hard evidence. This is the nature of the game. First of all how do you even suppose evidence could be procured? What form would this "evidence" have? Claims by partisan authority figures, like the media or politicians? Is that evidence? No. There is no evidence.

You have to make judgments based on your own perception and what you think is plausible, all the while being aware that your own perception is biased, by your preconceived understanding of the world, and also your perception is also actively manipulated by those who you are trying to assess.

With regards to the topic at hand I think what the GP claimed is plausible, Russian propaganda does exist, but also our politicians are now going to use this excuse every time there is legitimate discontent.

For example: a story broke out some weeks ago about Russian shills, shilling against the controversial Keystone Pipeline. This is usually not a right-wing political position. Those who stand to make a lot of money from the pipeline immediately tried to discredit all the opposition to the pipeline as Russian trolling.

[daxorid]

> Claims like this require hard evidence

This is an interesting take. The CIA/FBI/GCHQ have provided precisely zero evidence to the public on their various, and extensive, list of claims that Russia did bad thing X.

Why is the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist to prove a negative assertion, and not on the intelligence services - many of whom have a storied history of making things up - to prove a positive assertion?

[slabity]

I did not say the intelligence services do not have any burden of proof. Their claims absolutely require evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. I'd say they even require harder evidence because of the history you mention.

You can say their claims are unsubstantiated, or if they have provided evidence then you can provide counterarguments against it. But accusations like 'intelligence propaganda' need proof as well.