You're probably better off.

My mother in law is like that, doesn't understand philosophically correct statements...we no longer talk about anything with substance.

What's immoral is using it to say something you wouldn't say to a person's face because it's an insult. At least that's my own opinion. That is often, but not always, what these operatives do. And, in my mind, that's often a dead give-away. Sure, there are the random troglodyte trolls who just are rude people. But, this is different. The troglodyte trolls are often known residents of the forum (and often ruin it). I'm talking about people who, for some mysterious reason, just show up while a progressive topic pops up. Very curious...

Some of us just don't post very often.

There are a few -- very few rabid progressives (my cousins) that persist. They are smart, very indoctrinated and you can prove them wrong but they persist and you go around and around with them. The best thing to do in that case is to make your point, make sure it's understood and quit while you're ahead. If you don't you'll be wasting your time.

I've been using this technique in recent online debates with modern liberals and regressives. I work to keep a sharp focus on the subject -- keep out any emotion or name-calling. Employ logic ... do so in a well crafted paragraph (or two) that falls on its target like a precision-fired missile. The regressive may flail a bit, then vanishes. I don't hold any thoughts that I am changing the regressive; rather, I hope that the debate is read and understood by the majority of folks that read the exchanges but do not comment. I may be reaching some of those people. In that context, I believe that online debating with the regressives is a worthwhile investment of my time. It also helps me to fine-tune my arguments as a means to pack a more explosive punch.

"When the light of truth shines on them, they disappear." I have found this to be the case when I engage regressives in online debates. It's as if these shadows have a shard of intelligence and self-awareness and realize ... or perceive ... that The Light is shining on them ... the Truth does hurt ... them. And then they vanish.

I was referring to the lack of civility and manners the anonymity allows. That is what I find immoral.

I find myself using the simple reply of " How many illegals / "refugees" live at your house? How many do you personally pay all costs of living for, for their lifetime?" when they get self righteous about enforcing immigration law.. usually makes them go dark.

It was purposely sarcastic.

If you take a journalism class, they emphasize a certain style which most news agencies have adopted. If you don't write in that style, you don't get published and if you don't get published, you're looking for a new job. While it is a little different than you would find in a book, the focus is on highlighting information in the first few sentences.

Now if you want to see AI-based writing, check out nearly any sports story. Good grief. Talk about bland...

Retwit? Was that a slip or simply an accurate description of AH?

There is nothing the least bit immoral about using anonymity to avoid getting punched out for a political opinion. If that were successfully forbidden, the Internet as we know it, including this site, could not exist.

Of course the site admins can, and have, booted out people they believe to have an agenda opposed to their own.

You have to assault the Progressives with an over the top written paragraph of opposing propaganda that hurts them to their core. It's amazing how many people will positively rally to you.

I get the feeling that a lot of the "news" stories are automated. I dont know for sure, but I find that they are written in a style a bit foreign to me. I have trouble following what they are saying.

There are so many hidden agendas when people speak and act that its hard to take people seriously without extreme vetting and analysis of what they have to gain. With regard to media today, I pretty much ignore all of them for three reasons: 1) Most of what they talk about doesnt affect my life and would be a waste of time to listen to anyway, and 2) They tell me things to get me to believe what they say for some hidden agenda of their own, and 3) the news they talk about is just designed to get me to sit through their constant stream of commercial advertisers.

I would rather just pay a subscription and get rid of the advertising part of news. That would help with reason #3. Still leaves #2 and #1.

Do I have to say it again? It's the well-greased road for meme warfare. Before computers (BC) people sat around the village green and argued. Traitors to their dominant belief system were excommunicated or executed. Nowadays, trolls and moles.

Those who put their money where their mouthpieces operate are not unethical; they believe sincerely in the causes they espouse and have a mountain of rationalizations to buttress their tenets. They don't realize they are not being rational; they are, in fact, the sort of pragmatists Rand condemned.

And they plead altruism as their overriding motivation. They view themselves as virtuous warriors against the selfish individualists. They conflate crony cads with honorable entrepreneurs. And then there are the malcontents who enjoy being nasty behind their cloak of anonymity. Like jackals, they follow the scent.

How to deal with them? Ignore them. Don’t give them the satisfaction of attention and rebuttal.

Wouldn't it be fun for some of us to be paid to infiltrate their forums? ;-)

Well said.

Soros funds hundreds - if not thousands - of people in this manner as a form of influencing public policy. While it isn't strictly illegal, it crosses the boundaries of my ethics.

I also wouldn't put it past some to have created AI's for this purpose either, though it would be pretty hard to program in an AI with the grammar and vitriol I've seen in many posts...

Haha..."Who dis?" Yeah, that's what I say, too.

Actually, they were never really there to begin with. They're like malevolent shadows. When the light of truth shines on them, they disappear.

An allosaur can attract those from time to time.
Me dino be a-thinking "Who dis?"
But to rumble in da jungle be what dinos do.

Sounds like you might be referring to those who come in with a flame thrower and light a fire and then sit back to watch it burn. Most of these individuals do in fact have strong opinions on a number of topics but are unable and unwilling to stand their ground and argue their wayward cause.

Yes, I have seen that, they didn't bother me too much on facebook, the subjects were beyond their understanding...had a nice group of followers though. Been trying to get them into AS.

Twitter? wow, is that brutal! I recently started to respond to those twit's you read about in some news articles. Had Ariana Huffington thrash me while I was using my famous "Anti-Lectual quotes...but once I explained it to her...I got a like and a retwit out of her.
If it's the paid for by sorass, walking dead you wish to engage?...go on twitter.