by Pants Elk » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:11 pm
It's hard to know where to start on this without ruffling feathers or raising hackles (whatever they are), but this whole "disinformation" thing is such a ... waste of time. If someone is using this forum to spread disinformation (ie, I suppose, information that is deliberately distorted to some extent to further a hidden agenda - is that a fair definition?) - then it is up to the reader to use their rigorous intuition to sieve out what s/he feels is good and useful from that which is not. Use their own judgement, take what they need, and leave the rest behind. Don't we do this all the time, everywhere, anyway? As to there being *agents* of disinformation, this is, for me, one of the things I tweezer out and throw away. Does anybody have any proof that such a job/person exists? Operatives presumably acting on orders or getting paid for participating in internet forums and winning hearts and minds? Does it take an "agent" to do that? Cannot anyone have an independent point of view that they hide under a "false flag"? But why would they make life so complicated for themselves?<br>One tactic such a person might use would be to make an "unacceptable" (politically, racially, whatever) point of view look reasonable, but how possible is this? How many disinfo agents would it take to make (for example) me think Nazism has been treated unfairly by the historians? Or that (say) the 9/11 towers were brought down by a hail of invisible jellybeans? No matter what references were quoted, I'm going to stick with my own feelings and knowledge.<br>The idea of "disinfo agents" seems an unnecessary complication, a distraction. If someone posts something on RI that you find in whole or part not according to your precepts or findings, why do you need to make a judgement if they're a "disinfo agent" or not? Once you've made the call (on what evidence?) you're not going to believe anything that person says, or at least keep it on hold; it colors your judgement. And you could be wrong. In fact - how do you know you're right? In leveling a charge of being a disinfo agent, could you not be acting as a particularly subtle disinfo agent yourself?<br><br>There's a lot of material I find incredible on RI; that's part of its charm and usefulness. I don't care how outlandish the speculation is. I don't concern myself with the sincerity of the author(s) overmuch, either. Some posts I find myself nodding along to, only to be brought up short by something I find too bizarre (or sometimes, too ordinary) to be taken seriously. Some of it I treat as information in the sense that it seems true, some I treat as information in the sense that it may be true, and not a little of it I treat as information in the sense of it being wildly out of synch with my own take on things. All of it is, in some sense, information. I do not need the concept of "disinformation" to get great benefit from this site (and the others I skim through from time to time) - in fact, the whole concept is redundant, uninteresting, and only serves to turn debate in on itself.<br><br>Of course, it is your right to suspect this posting as the work of a "disinformation agent", and this last paragraph a clever double-bluff. <p></p><i></i>
