zlacker

Literally one comment ago you said "the problem was that it was entirely one way."

>>UncleM+(OP)
Individuals accounts cannot always be categorized in one of two ways. There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

>>starkd+eC
You are contradicting yourself. “The problem was that it was entirely one way.”

>>Apocry+s91
Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.

>>starkd+dV1
What would have made it more of a comfortably multilateral situation?

>>starkd+eC
>There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

An attempt by whom? Please be specific and name names.

Counter to which specific narrative? Please be specific and detailed.

Otherwise, you're just making unsupported claims. Not a good look, friend.

>>starkd+dV1
>Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.

You keep referring to a "narrative," but you don't provide any details WRT to the ideas presented in such a "narrative."

As such, I have to reject your claims for lack of detail, facts or evidence. Feel free to change my mind by providing such things.