[unethical_ban]

You edited your original post to be more acceptable, didn't acknowledge it, then doubled down on implying I don't want to engage. Shame on you.

I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.

I am willing and able to debate the nature of all governments and to acknowledge history. I don't enjoy sarcasm, snide remarks, and unacknowledged bad faith edits.

[infamouscow]

I apologize. I edited the previous messages to come across less snarky; that was not my intention and is why I quickly deleted my comment about being a marionette. I genuinely value open dialogue and the exchange of ideas. However, I must point out the irony that while we both claim to be interested in constructive conversation, this discussion has yet to delve into the substantive aspects of the issue at hand:

"One is my government, one is a hostile government."

Instead, we find ourselves focusing on peripheral points and accusations.

This situation brings to mind the tactics employed by the CIA to discredit truth tellers like journalists and academics. These tactics often involve diverting attention from the core issues, creating distractions, and undermining the credibility of the individuals presenting the facts. Engaging in this behavior we inadvertently contributes to a climate of misinformation and confusion, which hinders productive discourse and prevents us from reaching a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

[stale2002]

You are missing the point.

"One is my government, one is a hostile government."

This is a perfectly valid retort.

A hostile foreign government spying on Americans is a national security risk.

It is perfectly fine to care more about national security risks like that, even if both situations are arguably bad.

Hostile foreign governments doing it is simply worse and more important to regulate.

Please respond to this directly instead of talking around it.

[infamouscow]

The claim on its face was never in dispute.

The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.

Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.

[stale2002]

> The claim on its face was never in dispute

Ok gotcha, so then the point is valid, and it is totally fine to be more worried about, and ban the actions of a hostile foreign government.

Glad you agree completely with the central point, and we cleared that up that you are in 100% agreement with the original statement.

[infamouscow]

The central point is that when presented with the factual realities of the Smith-Mundt Act being repealed, it's crucial to reevaluate one's opinions to ensure they are not influenced by tainted information. By not acknowledging the impact of the Smith-Mundt Act, it's unclear whether the opinions being expressed are free from propagandistic influences.

I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.

[stale2002]

So is that a yes, that you agree completely that it is correct to be more concerned about actions of hostile foreign governments, and it's Ok to ban those things first?

Because that sounds like a yes to me!

You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.

If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".

Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".

This is a yes.