The full extent of Russia's social media manipulation 2015-present

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#1
I just listened to really good podcast:
Sam Harris speaks with Renée DiResta about Russia’s “Internet Research Agency” and its efforts to amplify conspiracy thinking and partisan conflict in the United States.
She helped write some reports on the extent of Russian interference. You can read through this 100 page report and this slide presentation. They extensively document all the numbers, all the accounts, and all the particular goals of Russian influence. To be clear, beyond the "they want Trump to win" talking point is their more malicious goal of fostering and accelerating the tribalization of America. They created groups for every imaginable cultural sub-group before the primaries even started, focused on "group pride" to develop trust with their user bases, and then crept in political messaging after having established that trust. If you don't think this kind of behavior by Russia is bad for America than you haven't been paying attention to America's current political climate. Especially when national elections are decided by razer thin margins of 80,000 votes.

Here are the highlighted key takeaways:

-The comprehensive dataset included 10.4 million tweets, 1107 YouTube videos, 116,205 Instagram posts, and 61,483 unique Facebook posts.

-There is still what appears to be active content and ongoing efforts on several platforms.

-The majority of the content focused on societally divisive issues, most notably race.

-The greatest effort on Facebook and Instagram appears to have been focused on developing Black audiences. There was significant and extensive integration into the Black community, particularly on Facebook, via the creation of a dedicated media ecosystem, the sharing and cross-promotion of legitimate media content, and ongoing attempted development of human assets. The degree of integration was not replicated in the Right-leaning content.

-Substantial portions of the political content was anti-Hillary Clinton on both the right and left-leaning pages. There was no pro-Clinton content aside from a public rally in which Muslims were asked to support her. The bulk of the Muslim page content was still anti-Clinton.

-There appeared to be a strong and consistent preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, beginning in the early primaries. There was unfavorable content about a wide range of Republican candidates and leaders, including Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and then-candidate Dr. Ben Carson.

-Messaging tactics and topics varied by platform: Facebook and Instagram focused on creating persistent messaging and reinforcing themes. They created strong ties by posting a majority of content designed to generate in-group approval and camaraderie, then posted occasional content that was either designed to sow division from out-groups, explicitly partisan and election-related, or focused on a theme that Russia cared about (Syria). Twitter content, meanwhile, was much more reactive to current events and topics, and less focused on group dynamics.

-Gun rights (including a dedicated page for Black audiences) and immigration received extensive attention.

-There were instances in which the same article was shared to two different Pages simultaneously, with each taking the opposite point of view.

-There were several variants of suppression narratives, spread both on Twitter and on Facebook. These included malicious misdirection (text-to-vote scams deployed on Twitter), support redirection (‘vote for a 3rd party!’), and turnout suppression (‘stay home on Election Day!’).

-The IRA shifted a majority of its activity to Instagram in 2017; this was perhaps in response to increased scrutiny on other platforms, including media coverage of its Twitter operation.

-Instagram engagement outperformed Facebook; this may be an indicator of the platform being more ideal for memetic warfare (it offers features and a culture that are a hybrid of Facebook and Twitter). It may also indicate the IRA used click farms to boost their numbers.
 
Nov 12, 2016
742
745
250
#4
It would blow your mind if you really knew what happened on a world stage. They aren't the only ones doing such things. Not even close. But now the internet is "woke" because the liberal-owned media is pushing the heck out of this narrative, because Russia has always been bad like orange man. Neither want to play Liberal globalist. This hypocrisy isn't the big scandal they want it to sound like. Trump isn't working to hand over the keys for the US to Putin. If you you were Russia, why would you want a Liberal to be in power?
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#6
It would blow your mind if you really knew what happened on a world stage. They aren't the only ones doing such things. Not even close. But now the internet is "woke" because the liberal-owned media is pushing the heck out of this narrative, because Russia has always been bad like orange man. Neither want to play Liberal globalist. This hypocrisy isn't the big scandal they want it to sound like. Trump isn't working to hand over the keys for the US to Putin. If you you were Russia, why would you want a Liberal to be in power?
Garbage post is garbage.
 
Mar 12, 2013
2,872
94
410
#7
It would blow your mind if you really knew what happened on a world stage. They aren't the only ones doing such things. Not even close. But now the internet is "woke" because the liberal-owned media is pushing the heck out of this narrative, because Russia has always been bad like orange man. Neither want to play Liberal globalist. This hypocrisy isn't the big scandal they want it to sound like. Trump isn't working to hand over the keys for the US to Putin. If you you were Russia, why would you want a Liberal to be in power?
Right out of page 73 of the report:

Soon after the November 2016 election, investigative journalism began to uncover evidence of
both the IRA’s social influence and the GRU’s hacking operations. As articles began to emerge
about election interference – pointing the finger at Russia – the IRA didn’t shy away or ignore
it. It used derision and disparagement in content targeting the Right-leaning pages, to create
and amplify the narrative that the whole investigation was nonsense, that Comey and Mueller
were corrupt, and that the emerging Russia stories were a “weird conspiracy” pushed by “liberal
crybabies”. As facets of the investigation trickled out over 2017, the Right-targeted accounts
justified, dismissed, normalized, and redirected.
"Others do this too" (normalize, justify)
"Pushed narrative, isn't a big scandal" (dismiss)
"Liberal globalists, liberal media" (redirect)
 
Jul 13, 2018
410
393
215
#8
There are 500 million tweets on twitter in a day.

This marks 2015 to present? So 3 years, including after the election. So that's 1.5 billion tweets in a few days. That's 547 billion tweets made in the world during the time of this examination. And they found 10 mil they suspect were from Russia.

The tweets all followed the same clickbait/outrage pattern of the majority of press.

Son, this is unexceptional. My question is did Sam Harris ever point out how much of a yawner this all is?
 
Last edited:
Likes: MrRogers

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,357
5,382
475
#9
The comprehensive dataset included 10.4 million tweets, 1107 YouTube videos, 116,205 Instagram posts, and 61,483 unique Facebook posts.
That's like a drop in the sea, if even that. Clinton's divisive campaign did more damage than these 'social media manipulators' ever could have hoped to achieve. History has shown that american society doesn't need external influence or social media to fall for false narratives, conspiracy theories and fake news. The highly biased U.S. media landscape is producing plenty on its own.
 

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
872
90
760
#13
A post I found on reddit closely aligns to the opinion I hold about this which I thought was worth sharing:

I found this podcast to be very compelling and a worthwhile listen. The guest seems very well informed and well-meaning. However, I do feel that this conversation fundamentally missed the mark in a few ways.

DISCLAIMER: It's important to point out that even though Sam's guest seemed genuinely well-meaning, she is incredibly deeply incentivized to prove that the subject of her life's work, the research of weaponized social media platforms, is deeply important and consequential. If, for instance, it turned out that everything she said about the Russian methods and execution is true (and I believe it is), but that the meddling was still inconsequential in terms of actually impacting real people, the collective response to her life's work would be "so what?" It is merely human for her to want to prove the importance of her work, and I don't hold it against her, but it's an important bias to keep in mind as you listen to their conversation.

The general thrust of this guest's appearance is that (1)Russian meddling in the 2016 election occurred via social media manipulation/coercion, and (2)the US would be well-served to take significant measures immediately to combat and prevent future meddling, as it is an incredibly dangerous threat. (THESIS)
  1. I don't think anyone seriously denies that Russian medling occurred in the 2016 election. Disputes arise when the degree to which this meddling actually impacted the 2016 election. The is a big difference between "Russians meddled in the 2016 election" (STATEMENT 1) and "Trump only won because of Russina meddling in the 2016 election". (STATEMENT 2) The guest was able to describe the nature and methods of the Russian meddling in fascinating detail. However, she was unable to provide even a bit of evidence regarding practical consequences of this meddling.
  2. In order for the second half of the above THESIS to hold, STATEMENT 2 needs to be true. The Russian meddling in the election (via social media) would have needed to be significant enough to materially impact the outcome in order for any reasonable person to agree to the relatively extreme preventative measures that the guest suggested. These suggestions related chiefly to a stricter policing of content and content creators as well as something approximating data transparency between the social media companies and the governemnt. That's a slippery slope to free speech suppression and mass privacy violations, and it's only worth traversing if the US is truly being victimized by a weaponized, effective deployment social media warfare from Russia.
The guest's failure to adequately explain the scale/degree of the actual consequences and impact of Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election prevents the 2nd (and more important) portion of the THESIS from being an effective argument.
At one point during the episode, she mentions her research revealed a total of 81 FB pages (62K posts) and 113 IG pages (116K posts). Then she listed some engagement (engagement defined in her words as likes, shares, or comments) numbers that sounded pretty impressive: 187 million IG engagements and 75 million FB engagements. This was the only hard evidence she presented about the impact and actual consumption of these Russian social media efforts. To anyone with any experience operating remotely large social media accounts, it is clear that the guest is either incredibly ignorant about or being deceitful about the minute impact of these intricate Russian efforts. I'm going to get into some numbers and minutiae here but it's important to rebut the thrust of the guest's argument.

187 million IG engagements (likes or comments) over 116k posts. That's 1,612 engagements per post. Anyone who uses instagram at all knows that it would be asinine to suggest that an account with ~1,500 likes and ~100 comments per post is making any meaningful large-scale impact on anything.
75 million FB engagements (likes, shares, or comments) over 62K posts. That's 1,209 engagements per post. The same exact argument about the meaninglessness of an account that only gets 1,000 likes on a post applies
The guest mentions that there were about 20 facebook accounts that were driving a vast majority of the engagements, so lets assume that each account posts a similar amount of content regardless of popularity and that 20 of the 81 FB pages (~25%) generated 90% of the engagements. That would result in these 20 "influencer" FB accounts generating ~4,596 engagements per post. Again, anyone who has any experience running a large social media acocunt knows that these numbers are absolutely miniscule, and the aggregate 250M total engagements number across both IG and FB for the entire election cycle is equal to one month's worth of activity at a small-to-medium size media company.

The crux of the guest's argument rests on her ability to demonstrate that the Russian meddling in the 2016 Election was consequential and impactful. Otherwise, how is it possibly worthwhile to impose significant (truly significant) and potentially harmful changes to the US social media atmosphere as a means of defense against future meddling? Throwing out aggregated, impressive-sounding metrics in the hundreds of millions (that lose power when properly broken down as I have above) as if they suffice as evidence reveals either profound ignorance or deceitfulness on the part of Sam's guest.

The greatest hurdle to be overcome with Trump and his entrenched base is that people all over the media are claiming to be truth-tellers when they are in fact clearly lying. In order to convince them, one needs to be honest in their argument. It is enough to merely point out Trump's poor character and often unhinged behavior. When the media overreach and make Trump out to be Adolf Hitler, or people like this guest on the podcast overreach to say "The Russians not only meddled, they caused Trump to win," they are alienating these people even further by confirming their inherent distrust of the media. I wish people like Sam's guest would be more honest about what they know and do not know--they would give far less air for Trump to occupy with dishonesty of his own.
 
Likes: Joe T.

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#14
That's like a drop in the sea, if even that. Clinton's divisive campaign did more damage than these 'social media manipulators' ever could have hoped to achieve. History has shown that american society doesn't need external influence or social media to fall for false narratives, conspiracy theories and fake news. The highly biased U.S. media landscape is producing plenty on its own.
The election was determined by a drop in the sea.

Also the fact you think Russia's influence is essentially irrelevant to American politics is something Putin and Russia clearly don't agree with.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,357
5,382
475
#15
Sam's guest seemed genuinely well-meaning, she is incredibly deeply incentivized to prove that the subject of her life's work, the research of weaponized social media platforms, is deeply important and consequential.
Well yes, she is making her living around this problem, so it's no wonder that she is overemphasizing.

The election was determined by a drop in the sea.
Then by all means it should be easy to provide evidence that the Russian manipulators are what turned the election. How do you know it wasn't Clinton's abysmal campaign? The fact that Trump even stood a chance and didn't melt like a snowball in hell is proof in the pudding that this political divide existed well before any elections even happened. If anything the Russian trolls took advantage of something that lingered and festered within the american society long before they even took to their keyboards.

Also the fact you think Russia's influence is essentially irrelevant to American politics is something Putin and Russia clearly don't agree with.
The same can be said about every other global power. That's like not even an argument.
 
Likes: Bolivar687

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#17
Then by all means it should be easy to provide evidence that the Russian manipulators are what turned the election. How do you know it wasn't Clinton's abysmal campaign? The fact that Trump even stood a chance and didn't melt like a snowball in hell is proof in the pudding that this political divide existed well before any elections even happened. If anything the Russian trolls took advantage of something that lingered and festered within the american society long before they even took to their keyboards.
Yes, the political divide existed before the election. And the Russians began their social media campaigns before the election in order to integrate and inflame tribalism and direct it toward voter suppression for Clinton, especially among black communities, and voter turnout for Trump. It is truly bizarre that one needs to demonstrate Russians literally turned the election in order to feel justified combating Russian interference that was clearly manipulating American citizens.

A post I found on reddit closely aligns to the opinion I hold about this which I thought was worth sharing:
As far as I remember the podcast guest never claimed "The Russians not only meddled, they caused Trump to win." I'll need a timestamp for that. The fact that your Reddit user thinks that one needs to demonstrate that the election had a fraudulent outcome in order to justify a more aggressive stance against Russian propaganda targeting Americans is ridiculous. He then mixes that claim with some vague language of needing to show it was "consequential and impactful" manipulation. Considering the US Government has indicted many Russian nationals and corporations over this, it's clear the US government viewed it as a dangerous threat to our democracy. The fact that they can't explicitly show that the propaganda caused those specific 80k to vote, or any number of black Americans to stay home, is a metric that is literally unmeasurable given the limits of privacy protection and IP tracking and everything else. The user essentially demands evidence that physically can't be gathered while dismissing the evidence that demonstrates the next best thing, user engagement.

The math included in the rebuttal is also clearly misguided. You can't just take total engagements, divided it by total posts, and get an overall "effect" statistic. Most of the propaganda sites built up their user bases over time. It's absurd to reduce it to a linear chart that apparently has no growth and exists in a bubble. Additionally, the user dismisses the 1-to-1 manipulation Russia did with many users, requesting direct DMs, asking 3rd parties who thought they were "allies" to post content on their behalf, among other methods.

It's just truly incredible that a foreign country attempting to intentionally inflame tribalism is dismissed out of hand. This is an obvious issue that shouldn't have partisan blinders as they were manipulating a wide variety of political affiliations, yet here we are.

Speaking of memetic attempts to inflame tribalism. Good contribution, bro.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,357
5,382
475
#18
As far as I remember the podcast guest never claimed "The Russians not only meddled, they caused Trump to win." I'll need a timestamp for that.
Well for once, you have presented your topic like that, so if anything I can congratulate her for choosing her words more carefully in her interview with Harris. But fret not, there's plenty of evidence about what she's trying to imply, as she's been making the rounds for quite a while now.

It was clearly impactful, even on an individual basis where Russian propagandists would get other individual users to post content for them. And Russia, regardless of the election, were using psychological tactics that clearly exploited and increased tribalism.
Blaming the societal ills and their divisive nature on foreign influence is way too reductive and does a poor job addressing the root causes for the political and ideological tribalism in american society today. Plenty of U.S. politicians and public opinion makers who are creating strife and division in the U.S., we certainly don't need the Russians for that.

It's just truly incredible to be that a foreign country attempting to intentionally inflame tribalism is dismissed out of hand.
Maybe I find myself rather unruffled because I've been observing this kind of tribalism for a long time now, long before the Russian narrative and Trump running for president. But it could also be that I've grown rather accustomed to the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs, either by taking direct influence on elections, toppling governments, supporting dictators, military invasions, weapon deals or the sheer output of their media and entertainment industry. A couple of Russian trolls tweeting tweets is nothing compared to that. So I'm sorry if I don't share your same level of enthusiasm.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,512
935
#19
Well for once, you have presented your topic like that, so if anything I can congratulate her for choosing her words more carefully in her interview with Harris. But fret not, there's plenty of evidence about what she's trying to imply, as she's been making the rounds for quite a while now.



Blaming the societal ills and their divisive nature on foreign influence is way too reductive and does a poor job addressing the root causes for the political and ideological tribalism in american society today. Plenty of U.S. politicians and public opinion makers who are creating strife and division in the U.S., we certainly don't need the Russians for that.



Maybe I find myself rather unruffled because I've been observing this kind of tribalism for a long time now, long before the Russian narrative and Trump running for president. But it could also be that I've grown rather accustomed to the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs, either by taking direct influence on elections, toppling governments, supporting dictators, military invasions, weapon deals or the sheer output of their media and entertainment industry. A couple of Russian trolls tweeting tweets is nothing compared to that. So I'm sorry if I don't share your same level of enthusiasm.
It certainly matters to national security, what else is Russia interested in doing, or who would help them? We should be the ones meddling, not anyone meddling with us. :)
 
Jul 13, 2018
410
393
215
#22
Right out of page 73 of the report:



"Others do this too" (normalize, justify)
"Pushed narrative, isn't a big scandal" (dismiss)
"Liberal globalists, liberal media" (redirect)

This "they must be russian troll!' stuff belongs on Resetera. It's hysterical conspiracy nonsense. It belongs in a Twilight Zone eipsode.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,938
1,989
240
#24
David brocks shareblue has them beat by numbers this tells me that this is not special or unusual but the ordinary and in line with numbers produced from china or canada or europe during the us election.
It feels like russia gets picked out of the lot because its politically convenient considering the "interference in us election" claim can be made against several other countries in the same way if now ordinary numbers of pr tweets are in question.
 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2016
742
745
250
#25
Right out of page 73 of the report:



"Others do this too" (normalize, justify)
"Pushed narrative, isn't a big scandal" (dismiss)
"Liberal globalists, liberal media" (redirect)
Page 73 of the NPC manual. It can't be argued! No one has ever attempted to influence politics in the history of man. It will never happen again. Orange man bad. Russia badder.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#26
Well for once, you have presented your topic like that, so if anything I can congratulate her for choosing her words more carefully in her interview with Harris. But fret not, there's plenty of evidence about what she's trying to imply, as she's been making the rounds for quite a while now.
I didn't present the topic like that. In fact I specially framed it as hurting "both sides" as I think tribalism is harmful regardless of your political preference. My reference to the election being decided by only 80k votes is to make clear that we should be concerned about factors that may appear small, especially in elections where the margins are razer thin. I'm not saying Russia caused the election to tip; rather I'm saying it had an equally chance to tip along with other seemingly minor events like the Comey memo a week before the vote, or Hillary's deplorable comment, etc. If anything this was an election where it's impossible to tell what small factor may have definitively sealed the deal for Trump.

Blaming the societal ills and their divisive nature on foreign influence is way too reductive and does a poor job addressing the root causes for the political and ideological tribalism in american society today. Plenty of U.S. politicians and public opinion makers who are creating strife and division in the U.S., we certainly don't need the Russians for that.
I agree the tribalism began before Russia involved itself, but a foreign power intentionally throwing fuel onto a fire should be stopped. We certainly have the right to shut down foreign attempts to further exacerbate American stupidity.

Maybe I find myself rather unruffled because I've been observing this kind of tribalism for a long time now, long before the Russian narrative and Trump running for president. But it could also be that I've grown rather accustomed to the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs, either by taking direct influence on elections, toppling governments, supporting dictators, military invasions, weapon deals or the sheer output of their media and entertainment industry. A couple of Russian trolls tweeting tweets is nothing compared to that. So I'm sorry if I don't share your same level of enthusiasm.
US does bad things too, but that doesn't diminish Russia's clear goal of manipulation for their own ends, and entrapping many Americans into what is essentially a foreign intelligence operation. This reminds me a lot of the Russian creation of whataboutism; i.e. every time America would criticize Russian human rights violations, Russia would retort with something along the lines of "but what about how America treats black citizens" in order to derail and ignore the actual criticism. Also, a "couple of Russian trolls" just isn't an accurate summation of the data or the scope. Think millions of dollars a month for years.

And this entirely ignores the fact they hacked the DNC and released emails, which was clearly a violation of American law and is pretty damn hard to argue it didn't have an impact. It was especially useful in Democratic voter suppression, as the narrative of the DNC rigging things against Bernie was instantly formed.

Page 73 of the NPC manual. It can't be argued! No one has ever attempted to influence politics in the history of man. It will never happen again. Orange man bad. Russia badder.
You don't seem to understand the irony of complaining about NPC's when half your response is scripted dialogue and year old catch-phrases.
 
Last edited:
Jul 13, 2018
410
393
215
#27
David brocks shareblue has them beat by numbers this tells me that this is not special or unusual but the ordinary and in line with numbers produced from china or canada or europe during the us election.
It feels like russia gets picked out of the lot because its politically convenient considering the "interference in us election" claim can be made against several other countries in the same way if now ordinary numbers of pr tweets are in question.
Yes, Russia is the convenient target. First, you can bring up old cold war fears. Second, the political and economic ties aren't as strong and you can risk hurting them. There's likely a ton more money and ties between Saudi and both Trump and Clinton, but we aren't willing to risk Saudi in the world of geopolitics. Russian deals and connections are far more expendable. It also helps that Russia doesn't care about the hysteria. It makes Putin look stronger than he is and they laugh at the whole idea. Basically, you can't offend Russia by saying they interfered. You would probably irk Saudi or China, etc.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
#28
So why is Russian influence more important than any other countries influence?
Do people think Europe didn't influence the Election? Or China?
 
Oct 30, 2017
963
822
225
#29
When I was in booth, I didn’t hear anyone saying “voteski trumpski nowski”. I voted for Trump particularly for the Supreme Court and also I abhor leftists. This whole Russian influenced our election stuff is garbage. Leftists are just salty.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
4,007
963
345
USA
#30
@Arkage, instead of blaming foreigners for your self-imposed problems (America's oldest pastime), maybe you should take an introspective look at yourself and ask whether or not you personally have contributed to America's polarization that made us so susceptible to Russian disinformation.

This goes out to all the usual suspects, but I've noticed your threads aren't really intended to ferment discussion, but to antagonize the opposition and give you a chance to say "I told ya so!" Our corporate media is exacerbating our divides 24/7 and all you ever seem to do is crank up the volume. I admit to indulging in the occasional shitpost myself, but I also try to stay objective and substantiate my ideas whenever possible - yet I can already think of one occasion where, instead of engaging with my ideas, you just dismissed everything I had to say out of hand, calling it "complete horseshit."

The irony is, like many others on NeoGAF, I consider myself a liberal, and was a lifelong Democrat before the party began appealing to the racial and religious divides in our country as a means of terminating honest debate and playing to the lowest common denominator of our human nature. Instead of parroting what millionaire entertainers and advocacy journalists are screaming at the top of their lungs, at every moment of the day, you could instead cut the snark and the vulgarity and engage us in honest discussion, affording us credit where you think we deserve it, and respectfully trying to persuade us when you think our perspective is a little off base.

When you responded to @strange headache that the election was swayed by a drop in the ocean, I genuinely felt sorry for you (I also admittedly laughed a little), because you've allowed yourself to fall for propaganda which the very most powerful elites in our country have peddled to obfuscate their own historical failures. If you instead put that energy into honestly asking yourself why Trump really won the election, maybe we could actually get to a real place of bipartisan common ground. Until then, you're only going to keep doing your part to make the problem worse, and I hope this post will help you to realize that somehow.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,225
905
540
#31
@Arkage, instead of blaming foreigners for your self-imposed problems (America's oldest pastime), maybe you should take an introspective look at yourself and ask whether or not you personally have contributed to America's polarization that made us so susceptible to Russian disinformation.

This goes out to all the usual suspects, but I've noticed your threads aren't really intended to ferment discussion, but to antagonize the opposition and give you a chance to say "I told ya so!" Our corporate media is exacerbating our divides 24/7 and all you ever seem to do is crank up the volume. I admit to indulging in the occasional shitpost myself, but I also try to stay objective and substantiate my ideas whenever possible - yet I can already think of one occasion where, instead of engaging with my ideas, you just dismissed everything I had to say out of hand, calling it "complete horseshit."

The irony is, like many others on NeoGAF, I consider myself a liberal, and was a lifelong Democrat before the party began appealing to the racial and religious divides in our country as a means of terminating honest debate and playing to the lowest common denominator of our human nature. Instead of parroting what millionaire entertainers and advocacy journalists are screaming at the top of their lungs, at every moment of the day, you could instead cut the snark and the vulgarity and engage us in honest discussion, affording us credit where you think we deserve it, and respectfully trying to persuade us when you think our perspective is a little off base.

When you responded to @strange headache that the election was swayed by a drop in the ocean, I genuinely felt sorry for you (I also admittedly laughed a little), because you've allowed yourself to fall for propaganda which the very most powerful elites in our country have peddled to obfuscate their own historical failures. If you instead put that energy into honestly asking yourself why Trump really won the election, maybe we could actually get to a real place of bipartisan common ground. Until then, you're only going to keep doing your part to make the problem worse, and I hope this post will help you to realize that somehow.
I didn't blame foreigners for the creation of self-imposed problems. Read my previous post, as you clearly didn't.

If you have a problem with my "snark and vulgarity" and think I am not showing enough "respect" to you and your peers feel take it up with the mods. Unless, of course, you think they'll dismiss your assertions outright. I doubt you'll want to waste your time on something you know you can't convince others of.

It's ironic that you finish up with saying how sorry you feel for me, and how my comments make you laugh out of pity, right after lecturing me about how to be respectful and how to persuade others. :messenger_ok:

Trump won by 80K votes out of 137.5 million total voters. If you don't consider that a "drop in the ocean" than I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:
Jul 13, 2018
410
393
215
#32
Trump won by 80K votes out of 137.5 million total voters. If you don't consider that a "drop in the ocean" than I really don't know what to tell you.
Consider why there were more non-votes than there were actual votes and you'll be closer to the truth than you are now.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
1,686
1,805
325
#36
a) Blames evil foreign Russians for posting things on social media

b) Let's in millions of illegals across the border who account for huge upswing in crime and actually negatively impact the country and its populace.

c) lol
 
Likes: dolabla
Jun 17, 2004
3,985
479
1,345
USA
#38
I've told Arkage before that there's no proof Russians hacked the DNC, but it doesn't really penetrate the thick wall of Arkage.
I'm confused, I thought you were here to enlighten us; I thought I would ascend

Consider why there were more non-votes than there were actual votes and you'll be closer to the truth than you are now.
please! I yearn to be closer to the truth. Please open my eyes to the realities of votes and non-votes and why there were more!
 
Last edited:
Oct 9, 2013
3,009
2,133
430
#39
The Russia boogeyman still alive and well. All because the war monger lost an election to an outsider. It's one of the biggest frauds (possibly the biggest) perpetuated on the American public since the Iraq War. Thank God for people like Julian Assange.
 
Last edited:
Likes: MrTickles