zlacker

>>xbar+(OP)
What is the guidance regarding commenters who are obvious trolls, propagandists and bad faith actors?

Being kind to them is completely wasted effort.

Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded.

However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.

>>jnsaff+8V2
Polite factual refutation probably works.

>>tim333+133
yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the very end and then gaslight you about needing to backup my opinions as if there weren't at least 2-3 inks for every assertion I make.

one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing

>>cultof+g43
So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.

>>YeGobl+i63
What I have observed is that you refute that actual bullshit with facts and then they come back with some other "whatabout" and new bullshit.

>>jnsaff+F73
The trick is to realize that if you've made a good point, readers will be smart enough to notice that the other person is just coming back with new bullshit. You don't need the last word to win an argument; being first to walk away actually adds power to your argument. If you've said what needs to be said, no "whatabout" can cancel it, and you'll weaken your case if you chase after it.

I still suck at this in practice but I'm sure of it in theory!

(I'm working on a longer reply to you at >>39158911 , but I can't resist replying here too because I feel like I figured this one out after 15+ years of frustration.)

>>dang+m05
Say whatever else you will about him but pg was really good at this.