Your response is a perfect example of precisely the dynamic M7 is talking about. Your voice on saidit is the most pure and consistent model I've seen to date for the worst of the bad actors humanity is up against.

Seems unnecessary to start with an ad hominem. I also don't know much about you, or you about me.

M7's point is that the game being played is exactly intended to create instability and mutual hatred.

It's not a 'game' and the point here about instability and division is the same point I make about the right-wing propaganda and abuses.

The point is not to calm the waters, negotiate, and find common ground, because the common ground found through such a process is not the common ground that is advantageous to the "power class", whom your posts consistently represent.

This is the same arguement I've made about the 1%. Merely follow the money. No - my posts are always against the so-called "power class". You can read my post history if you are unconvinced. It's strange that you have this opposite view of what I'v written here, as if you are following a false narrative propagated by Fox News &c, claiming that anyone who does not support Trump and similar authoritarians are themselves supporting the "power class". See what's wrong here? Right wing propaganda news media want people to believe that their reactions against Trump and the GOP are somehow support for the "power class" (whereas Trump and the GOP are the "power class" you refer to). This is meant to confuse people, so they're support the GOP. When is the last time the GOP did anything for the 99%? You probably can't remember because the GOP (and 2 Democrats) work only for the 1%, at the expense of the 99%.

In all your writing on this site (and I've been here a good long time now), you create exactly that hatred and instability.

Occasional disagreements with an occasional post or comment cannot do this, nor has this happened. You also have no evidence, and cannot locate good examples of this. If someone feels hated or unstable when there is a disagreement with his/her post, that would be unfortunate and perhaps not really about me, but about that other person. I am not saying that is hateful, or I would be banned for doing so. Your claim that I do this is rather worrying, and there is no evidence of it.

It's a hobby of many of us on here to get wound up by what you write.

Hardly anyone responds to anything I write. So there is no hobby. If you look through my comment history and select examples, you'll not see much in the way of responses from more than 3 or 4 people. No one genuinely cares what I have to say here. I also cannot recall the last time I got a response from you. It is thoughtful of you to respond to me now - but I can see in every sentence merely unsupported attacks against me in all of your comments. Thus it seems that you do not want to discuss the post you are responding to. Instead, you merely want to insult me. This is of course very low on the POD. I wonder why you've responded if you were not primarily interested in discussing the topic.

I'm no exception to this. This hatred we feel for what you say is precisely the dynamic M7 is describing.

And again - more hatred from you, as if you've gathered all Saiditors and have asked them collectively if they hate me and have now reported back with your comment. Is this really what Saidit is about? It shouldn't be. If you wish to discuss the topic, do so. Otherwise, you're violating POD guidelines.

To respond to your comment here specifically, your first paragraph is meaningless, just introduction. It's your second paragraph that betrays you for the millionth time for what you are. You are the impetus of division. M7's post and first comment are quite subtle and impressive in that they carefully escape the trap of picking a side. He does not say this is a "Democrat" or "Republican" problem[...]

OK - finally an argument, albeit slim. The argument can and should be made - as I've made it - for the global authoritarian trends, which are fascist and right-wing and GOP in nature. All of that is rather clear. It is not divisive to show where the corruption tends to develop. If you wish, remove Republican and GOP from the discourse, and the argument remains about the spread of authoritarianism, and which political parties -globally- are supporting this trend. And to make a point about a global conspiracy, the issue is not the nuance or the subtlety, but the opposite: to be explicit, clear, and provide evidence. M7 offered his assessment and I offered my assessment. You are merely trying to dismantle my arguments by claiming that I am picking on one political party in only one country &c (which is not really the case). We should be explicit.

In your second paragraph, you - not surprisingly, this is your pattern - work to undo this subtlety. What was a general warning about avoiding division and divisive rhetoric you turn immediately into precisely the divisive rhetoric he is warning against. You take a general warning and pin it to a single side. No longer is the problem "divisive rhetoric"; it's "Bannon's divisive rhetoric". [...]

It is absolutely ridiculous to defend Bannon and others who are developing fascist and far-right movements globally. Their tactics are obviously , absolutely divisive. To say that my reference to that is itself divisive is a defense of their abuses, using a common right-wing tactic of "we're not X, you're X." It doesn't hold up in adult arguments.

Put one last way, M7's comment leads to the conclusion that we should be working to talk to each other (most especially with those with whom we most disagree) so as to find common ground. Your comment leads to the conclusion that the "Bannon wing" must be excluded from the conversation. His comments lead toward inclusivity; yours leads to exclusivity. Those who don't agree with you are evil and unacceptable.

You're now implying that I disagree wiht M7's interest that we include different voices in the conversation, which is definitely not what's happening with my comment. I am certainly not arguing against an open dialog, but instead contributing to it. What you've done here is to try to tell me to shut up and that my comments are divisive. You genuinely don't want me to comment or to be part of this open dialogue that you claim is at issue here. Not onlythis, but you again defend the fascist movements by Bannon and others. OK - let's assume that we should include the fascists in this discussion. If that what you and M7 really want?

If you aren't willing to talk to those with whom you disagree, then there will never be a solution.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think anyone on Saidit agrees with me? I am indeed discussing with members of Saidit some of my disagreements. Moreover, this is not important to most Saiditors. So don't make too much of it, and notice that I am indeed here to talk with people I often don't agree with (as this helps me learn about them and develops some interesting conversations, especially at times when users can avoid attacking me in the process)

The foundation of your account here on saidit has been since day one "information" versus "disinformation".

There is no 'foundation' to the account, and my opinions are rather common. I'm a very boring, middle of the road kind of person. If I disagree with disinformation, so what...

To set up the paradigm this way is to structurally ensure permanent division, because you will never be willing to talk to those you disagree with.

See the comment above. You show here your lack of familiarity with my comments, or the verious discussions in the chat menu, which are rather interesting in recent days. You've not seen much of this or the responses to me, and especially the lack of interest anyone woud have in a so-called masterminding of a paradigm of info vs. disinfo, which in any event does not identify me.

Your philosophy - the polar opposite of inclusivity,

Absolute bullshit. Ask any number of lon-gime Saiditors about this and they'll recall that I've been a broken record about the need for greater inclusivity at Saidit. I've mentioned this so often, that I think a week has not passed without my commenting on exactly this - that people of different political, racial, social, class &c backgrounds should be openly welcome at Saidit, which would help the site grow. But of course what happens is that anyone who is not a far-right-wing influencer will get responses like your response to me today. We get tired of it and go away. Its happened to dozens of people while I've been here and they're not coming back. Saidit remains stagnant because of this. I address this topic regularly.

while pretending to use the language suggesting that you are the inclusive one - is the best long-term example I have seen over the past couple of years of precisely the force of division that M7 is writing against.

You've provided no evidence of this division, nor is there any. This is how inclusion works: allow people to disagree, welcome their disagreement, reduce mod abuse, and stop telling them that they are "the polar opposite of inclusivity" when you see that that they disagree with you. It's stinkin' thinkin'.

If you have an argument that there are global groups that are somehow worse than the fascist groups that I mentioned, this might be on topic and thus add to the discussion. Writing an essay ad hominim about what a bad person I am is against the Saidit guidelines.