@JoeGrowling This is absolutely critical to understand and discuss amongst ourselves.
The sheer volume of under identified or loosely identified bad actors and bad faith arguments shouldn't be minimized.
If you can't win with facts, the second smartest win is to make the other team lose. That way you're still actively working on what you can control. It's evil and horrible and terrible to think about - but that doesn't make it less true. The whole concept of "Facts don't care about your feelings" literally gives us what we need to know about their arguments. They will lean into slanted data and analytics constantly hoping to just drive away opposition. If no one is there to oppose me - I win.
I don't know if it's common practice, but it's practiced commonly enough to be considered 'normal'. We absolutely must consider the real motions behind the stated. This is a 'game' with very real winners and losers. It didn't have to be, but it is.
They are doing whatever they can to win, up to and including pissing us off to a point of refusing to play with them.
Got the feeling Kasparov got inactive not only in chess but also in politics in the last few years.
(no blaming at all)
@JoeGrowling Seems appropriate to post one of my favorite *ahem* music tracks right here.
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is...people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."
- Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism. 1967
[Edit: turns out Hannah Arendt was super racist]