[slg]

>What is your motivation for denying the obvious?

Comments like this don’t make you folks sound less like “conspiracy theorists”. It’s also a tone that tells me that you aren’t going to approach anything I say in good faith so there is no point in me trying to engage with you on the topic anymore.

[gslepak]

Written by sig a few minutes ago:

> It's very noticeable that this is the part of my comment you responded to and not the question

How funny you won't answer his question now. I'm also curious, what is your motivation for denying the obvious?

[pessimizer]

It's so aggravating to have to have arguments about whether some coordinated political push is happening due to money being spent. Literally every coordinated political push, at least ones with any success, is consciously planned and lobbied for, even the ones that I support.

I don't get pretending that no one is behind it. There are definitely people sitting in conference rooms in front of whiteboards trying to come up with ideas on how to do it most effectively. But people compartmentalize so hard, some people in that room would call you a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the meeting that they are currently attending. "I just do social media for a nonprofit. No, there's nothing wrong with us getting 90% of our funding from the US government, you're just a cynic. What evidence is there that we are working on their behalf? Do you think social media is good for teenagers?!"

[gslepak]

Just don't imply he's doing it on purpose or you'll get called a conspiracy theorist. ;p

[fc417fc802]

I'm not trying to sound like anything. I've engaged with you in good faith, articulating my view and inquiring as to why you are denying what appears obvious to me. In response you've accused me of bad faith and explicitly refused to engage.

I cannot help that water seems wet to me but if it seems dry to you I am willing to hear you out.