andrewrgross

Good for you, and thanks for doing all that! I won't prescribe a specific strategy, but for what it's worth: as soon as I read the news about this today, I went and donated $10.

I already liked him, but I don't just throw $10 at everyone I like. But I saw this and immediately wanted his campaign to see strong fundraising this week and get the message that they don't need to worry about this kind of thing.

Well maybe I'm wrong then. FWIW, you sound confident and credible to me.

I do agree that it seems obvious that this was sent to CNN by Janet Mills rather than discovered in house. I was just saying that I think this kind of research is easy enough for CNN to do that they could, but I agree that based on the timing of Mills' entrance into the race and the fact that I just don't really expect places like CNN to be that proactive that, yeah, this was absolutely sent to them in an email that probably looked like: "Subject: Anonymous bombshell tip! ; From: PR@ millsforsenate. com"

I'm curious how it works out. Attacking a guy running as an outsider in Maine for being pro-worker, pro-gun, and fed up with the system kind of sounds like they're misreading the electorate. Like... don't threaten Mainers with a good time, you know?

Really? You think so? I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem at all the case to me.

First, I think a lot of this is just skill. You dig around in the stuff that's publicly known, find usernames and links to old bios, and then start searching for those usernames on every social media site to see if a unique handle appears on OkCupid, PornHub, etc.

Second, on the resource side, there are tons of data brokers that have a ton of info on all of us. You don't think CNN has $50 to drop on a file filled with tracking data on a senate candidate? I think even broke local newsrooms have access to license plate reader data and leaked medical records and a ton of super personal info. I don't think they tend to use it, because a lot of them are understaffed and it's less cost-effective than just writing up local police blotters and whatever appears on Nextdoor. But I don't think it's hard to get this stuff at all.

In the article I saw, it said that the account had identifying information, and the posts were deleted but archived.

My interpretation is that the campaign of Janet Mills -- his primary rival -- found all of this during opposition research and then sent it to CNN.

It's so bizarre... surreal... darkly comic -- I don't know the right phrasing for this -- that Ben G'vir so embodies this Israeli form of double-speak. He will deny and confess in the same sentence.

He is the kind of guy who will say 'Any accusation that I am a torturer is a lie! Also, though, I do believe that torture is appropriate and I'm very committed to acting on that belief.'

So much has happened, many people don't know or remember. But I feel like the Sde Tilman riots were a turning point. Soldiers caught on camera raping a man in detention. And the public outcry including from members of the government was 'They're innocent! And also completely justified in raping that man! We're not criminals! And also we will bring furious violence against anyone who tries to hold us accountable under the law!'

Trump does this too, though even he isn't as skilled at it. 'To call me a fascist is slander! How dare you! But also I don't consider that a bad thing.'

It's very dark.

OAN: "I was saying Boo-urns."

It's kind of depressing to watch so many people just embrace this kind of naked smearing of someone.

I don't know Hasan's work. I know Vaush, and I think he frankly sucks. In either case, I'd rather people just say, 'Fuck that guy, I don't like him as a person' rather than diving into this practice of labeling everyone you don't like as a pedo or some other flavor of sick abusive pervert. It's gross.

Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.

But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.

Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue... do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?

For a second I misread and was like, wait, what? Then I clicked and was like, ok, wow. That's a take...

Respectfully:

Are you genuinely interested in exercising neutral skepticism? Or are you just arguing on the Internet against claims that run counter to your preferences for what you'd like to be true?

(Be honest.)

The article attributes it's claims to credible sources. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or just believe what suits you?

The beating and flag kissing is sourced to another captive, and might be exaggerated, but her general mistreatment was reported by Swedish diplomats after speaking to her. It's pretty credible, imo.