New study confirms that Russian propaganda may have affected the outcome of the 2016 election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, as I expected. When you argued "Well, it was just a little interference, so it doesn't matter", what you really meant was "Russia interfering in America's elections is okay because the US does it too, Both Sides, fuck the US."

No, one crime does not justify another. If my neighbor is a murderer, and I break into his house and gun him down, I will still go to prison. Its wrong if the US does it, its wrong if the Kremlin does it. And if you will defend the expansion of fascist power just because it fucks over the US, then you (like most of the "anti-establishment" crowd) will always be very easy for fascists to manipulate.

One crime may not justify another, but it makes it hard to care if the US' election was influenced, given the US' overt political interference all over the world.

Well, I'd rather try (difficult as it is) to care about all despotism and injustice. The US should not interfere in the free elections of another nation. And other nations should not interfere in ours (there are cases where intervention might be justified- to stop an ongoing genocide* or, of course, in response to an attack, for instance, but I'm talking about situations where those are not clearly applicable).

*Arguably, what Trump's doing on the border would justify other nations' intervening in our affairs, but given that Russian interference helped make that policy possible in the first place, I don't think its a great argument in Putin's defense.

[aerius]

Well, I'd rather try (difficult as it is) to care about all despotism and injustice. The US should not interfere in the free elections of another nation. And other nations should not interfere in ours (there are cases where intervention might be justified- to stop an ongoing genocide* or, of course, in response to an attack, for instance, but I'm talking about situations where those are not clearly applicable).

Hypothetical question: If the nation of Outer Loonystan helped instigate and directly supported a coup in Canada which toppled the legally, fairly, and democratically elected government and replaced them with a bunch of extremists who were hostile to the US, would the US be justified in dicking around in the internal affairs of Outer Loonystan?

[Coop D'etat]

If the Russians pulled off a covert influence operation, and I think the balance of evidence is that they at least tried to, its pretty much within how modern great power conflict works. Its hardly a grand moral outrage in of itself that they did things that all sorts of states try to do all the time.

Now, if you're an American, you have every right to be concerned about the prospect of foreign and likely hostile covert efforts interfering with the democratic process, because you have an natural interest in your own state's government remaining more or less functional. You'd be entirely right to want to address the weaknesses in your system that allowed this to happen and may call for proportionate retaliation. But that isn't a grand moral principle, its the justified defense of your own interests. Likewise, persons in other democratic states would be right to be concerned if they are vulnerable to the same kind of effort against their own system and should look to shore up their defenses against it.

The point is, if its true, then the Kremlin successfully pulled a fast one by exploiting the deep flaws and institutional corruption of American democracy. It would be entirely correct to not want them to be able to do it again, but at the same time its not something to hyperventilate about the dastardly world conquering Russians with their Putinbot hordes over.

The other thing is, it looks like the flaws in the American system that Russian interests exploited are largely built on the institutional mechanisms that keep Washington politicians in power, so there is a significant principle-agent issue with anything effective being done about it.

[mr friendly guy]

Says the guy who cuts out the rest of my explanation.

I was only focusing on what I took issue with. Notice how you use that to dodge Tiananmen square. Or my point about that still being censorship.

I already posted in past that I don't think they should censor Tiananmen. Not its relevant to my point about Leftist hypocrisy. Because anyone else can now justify censoring on the grounds of adverts having undue influence on political process. The point which flew over your head is, this opens up a whole can of worms. Fortunately since I stated they shouldn't censor over some Facebook adverts, it doesn't change my position. It does however affect people who complain about Russian meddling, because what's good for the geese is good for the gander, and that logic should apply.

You can't say "the left" believes in something because of the words of one person, which is why I brought in two different left wing news organisations as counter examples.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it? I see creating strawmen are though. I gave an example of the Left who engages in said hypocrisy. I didn't say every Leftist believed it because of Rachel Maddow. Or else I would be believing in Russiagate.

Rachel Maddow is also a minority in "the Left".

And as I said, not every one on the Left does the exact same thing. But those that do complain about Russia interference would be hypocritical to object to countries censoring Facebook on the grounds that Facebook facilitates such interference, when they just gave examples of it. So Kyle Kulinsky would not, since he doesn't give a shit about Russiagate. Likewise the right wing Trump supporters who don't complain about Russiagate also wouldn't be hypocritical. See how this works?

Two members of the Justice Democrats (Ilhan Omar and AOC) are members of Congress. Does holding power in Congress count as holding power in "the Left". What does it mean to hold power in "the Left" anyway?

Having sufficient influence to have your policies passed or your preferred candidates selected. What did you think power means aside from the ability to influence another actor to do what you prefer? Did you have another definition of power?

It's impossible for there to be no interference whatsoever. Large countries can interfere in other countries affairs simply by existing. Trading with another country is technically interfering in their affairs. Even if a country turns to Autarky there will be blackmarkets. And that's just economics. Cultural and political movements in one country can spread to other countries even if that was never the intent.

Nice dodge you pedantic twat. I had an argument on this, but then I thought it would be more fun to point the logical consequences of that statement which you clearly didn't think through. That means by your standards on "interference", as long as most members of the left are happy to do those things listed eg having cultural and political movements which spread, trade etc, they are by YOUR definition interfering. We disagree on what counts as interfering, but its nice to see you inadvertently admit the Left does complain about interference to itself but tolerates it on others. Thanks for playing.

Unless if a nation is in the middle of a civil war it will have a unified government that speaks on its behalf. There is no unified central command ofr "the left". And claiming that "the left" is pro intervention is quite a stretch. Do you have any evidence that interventionist members of "the left" outnumber isolationist members of "the left"? And are we just referring to "the left" in America or "the left" internationally. What do you mean when you say "the left"?

Well since your definition of interfering is so broad, I am going to say most people in the world, not just leftist in the US or in the world fit into that definition, so you proved it for me buddy.

My primary purpose is to call you out for attempted derailment, not engage in a debate on that topic. We've gone from talking about Russian interference to talking about "the left", foreign censorship and the alleged hypocrisy of certain board members, thread derailed.

Now I know you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, so let me explain how these topics link together. You see, when the topic is about social media such as Facebook adverts having undue effect on a country's political process then one of the next steps is to debate solutions. With me so far.. oh wait you're not, too bad. One of the possible solutions is banning or censoring it. And to debate its effect it will be great, if wait for it... wait for it... we have examples of actors who tried it. See where this goes now? It then leads to a very unpleasant thought for people crying out over Russiagate. It means that countries can be right to censor Facebook, even if for reasons such people personally disagree with.Because they just gave a valid reason to censor Facebook*, adverts . My God that was difficult.

* disclaimer, censor Facebook if regulation fails to reign them in, which was the other part of the discussion about how countries who aren't the US could try to regulate Facebook.

But like I said, if you think its verged away from its original point, then by all means ask a mod to split. You do know how to send PMs right? Or are you not so confident it will be split?

You are the one who first brought up the issue of Government's censoring Facebook.

Correct. And I spoke in general terms, but I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point as we shall see below.

People assumed you meant China because you have frequently defended China in the past.

I meant every nation which has censored face book. That's why I said countries, as in plural you dumbass. That's why I posted a link to censorship of Facebook by country, not a link to censorship of Facebook by China. You're a few fries short of a happy meal.

I brought up the Young Turks, Just Democrats and anti-war protestors as counter examples to you bringing up Rachel Maddow as an example of "the left" being in favour of interventionism.

Ah, but when you bring your examples its ok, when I bring up mine its rambling. Gotta love that Stormie hypocrisy there. BTW, other posts have turned up which I am sure you will consider derailment as well. Have fun playing amateur mod.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I'd rather try (difficult as it is) to care about all despotism and injustice. The US should not interfere in the free elections of another nation. And other nations should not interfere in ours (there are cases where intervention might be justified- to stop an ongoing genocide* or, of course, in response to an attack, for instance, but I'm talking about situations where those are not clearly applicable).

Hypothetical question: If the nation of Outer Loonystan helped instigate and directly supported a coup in Canada which toppled the legally, fairly, and democratically elected government and replaced them with a bunch of extremists who were hostile to the US, would the US be justified in dicking around in the internal affairs of Outer Loonystan?

Actually, in that case the US would justified in going to war (legally, at least- there might be other factors that would make war inadvisable), as an attack on Canada would trigger NATO Article 5, and we'd have a treaty obligation to come to Canada's defense.

[aerius]

Hypothetical question: If the nation of Outer Loonystan helped instigate and directly supported a coup in Canada which toppled the legally, fairly, and democratically elected government and replaced them with a bunch of extremists who were hostile to the US, would the US be justified in dicking around in the internal affairs of Outer Loonystan?

Actually, in that case the US would justified in going to war (legally, at least- there might be other factors that would make war inadvisable), as an attack on Canada would trigger NATO Article 5, and we'd have a treaty obligation to come to Canada's defense.

What if they did it to Mexico? To the best of my knowledge they do not have a mutual defence treaty with the US. What then?

[Solauren]

In the event of a coup, the remains of the legal government of mexico could declare themselves 'government' in exile and request the aid of the United States. Provided the 'Government in exile' is considered the legitimate government, then no one would really have a problem with it.

[The Romulan Republic]

In the event of a coup, the remains of the legal government of mexico could declare themselves 'government' in exile and request the aid of the United States. Provided the 'Government in exile' is considered the legitimate government, then no one would really have a problem with it.

I don't think he's really interested in the hypothetical he's posing. He's trying to set a trap for me to force me to admit that Russia's actions are justified (because "collusion denialist" is generally really just a cover for "collusion supporter")/brand me a hypocrite.

But yeah, your answer is probably correct.

As to what should happen, that would require more information to answer in detail- what is the situation on the ground, what options are practically feasible, which are likely to actually accomplish anything besides making the situation worse, etc. Ideally, a neutral third party would act as an arbitrator for diplomatic talks to restore the legitimate government of Mexico, with sanctions being applied if those responsible for the coup refused to cooperate. In practice, foreign policy rarely works so nicely, of course. If violence broke out, I would support humanitarian aid to the affected parties.

I would always oppose military action that poses a substantial risk of a clash between nuclear powers, regardless of which side (if either) I felt was in the right.

[stormthebeaches]

I already posted in past that I don't think they should censor Tiananmen. Not its relevant to my point about Leftist hypocrisy. Because anyone else can now justify censoring on the grounds of adverts having undue influence on political process. The point which flew over your head is, this opens up a whole can of worms. Fortunately since I stated they shouldn't censor over some Facebook adverts, it doesn't change my position. It does however affect people who complain about Russian meddling, because what's good for the geese is good for the gander, and that logic should apply.

You should have stated that you don't think they should censor Tiananmen when TRR first brought it up to avoid confusion. And I don't think anyone complaining about Russian meddling is calling for a ban on Facebook (in this thread at least).

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it? I see creating strawmen are though. I gave an example of the Left who engages in said hypocrisy. I didn't say every Leftist believed it because of Rachel Maddow. Or else I would be believing in Russiagate.

I was objecting to your claim that "the left" is in favour of America intervening in other countries and using Rachel Maddow is an example. Do you have any hard evidence that more members of "the left" are in favour of foreign intervention than opposed? Some polls perhaps?

And as I said, not every one on the Left does the exact same thing. But those that do complain about Russia interference would be hypocritical to object to countries censoring Facebook on the grounds that Facebook facilitates such interference, when they just gave examples of it. So Kyle Kulinsky would not, since he doesn't give a shit about Russiagate. Likewise the right wing Trump supporters who don't complain about Russiagate also wouldn't be hypocritical. See how this works?

Are they objecting to countries that censor Facebook, or countries that ban it. And are all the people who complain about Russian interference calling for censorship/a ban on Facebook? Or are they calling for Facebook to flag certain content (while still letting people read it).

Having sufficient influence to have your policies passed or your preferred candidates selected. What did you think power means aside from the ability to influence another actor to do what you prefer? Did you have another definition of power?

The problem with this argument is that many people in "the left" would argue that "the left" is does hold power in the American government and that most democrats are centrists rather than members of "the left". You seem to confuse holding power in "the left" with holding power in the government. So let me ask you again, what does in it mean to hold power in "the left", as opposed to holding power in government?

Nice dodge you pedantic twat. I had an argument on this, but then I thought it would be more fun to point the logical consequences of that statement which you clearly didn't think through. That means by your standards on "interference", as long as most members of the left are happy to do those things listed eg having cultural and political movements which spread, trade etc, they are by YOUR definition interfering. We disagree on what counts as interfering, but its nice to see you inadvertently admit the Left does complain about interference to itself but tolerates it on others. Thanks for playing.

My point is that your original question was silly. No sensible person, left or right, would call for "no interference whatsoever" (your words) because it is 100% impossible in today's globalized world.

Well since your definition of interfering is so broad, I am going to say most people in the world, not just leftist in the US or in the world fit into that definition, so you proved it for me buddy.

When most people say they are against interference they mean that they are against interference to reasonable means. I was simply pointing out that it is impossible for their to be "no interference whatsoever" in today's globalized world. What you should have said was "no interference to a reasonable degree". Now please answer my original questions: Do you have any evidence that interventionist members of "the left" outnumber isolationist members of "the left"? And are we just referring to "the left" in America or "the left" internationally. What do you mean when you say "the left"?

Now I know you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, so let me explain how these topics link together. You see, when the topic is about social media such as Facebook adverts having undue effect on a country's political process then one of the next steps is to debate solutions. With me so far.. oh wait you're not, too bad. One of the possible solutions is banning or censoring it. And to debate its effect it will be great, if wait for it... wait for it... we have examples of actors who tried it. See where this goes now? It then leads to a very unpleasant thought for people crying out over Russiagate. It means that countries can be right to censor Facebook, even if for reasons such people personally disagree with. Because they just gave a valid reason to censor Facebook*, adverts . My God that was difficult.

* disclaimer, censor Facebook if regulation fails to reign them in, which was the other part of the discussion about how countries who aren't the US could try to regulate Facebook.

But like I said, if you think its verged away from its original point, then by all means ask a mod to split. You do know how to send PMs right? Or are you not so confident it will be split?

The problem with your argument is that you have no evidence that the majority of the people complaining about Russian interference think that censorship/banning Facebook is the appropriate way to deal with the problem, as opposed to the cure being worse than the disease.

And I won't ask a mode to split because I have no desire to engage in a debate about the merits Facebook censorship, rather I wished to call out your behaviour.

Correct. And I spoke in general terms, but I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point as we shall see below.

I meant every nation which has censored face book. That's why I said countries, as in plural you dumbass. That's why I posted a link to censorship of Facebook by country, not a link to censorship of Facebook by China. You're a few fries short of a happy meal.

Lots of countries engage of Facebook censorship but China is the most well know, and is the best at, internet censorship. Combine this with your history of defending China in this board and it is reasonable for one to assume that you are talking about China.

Ah, but when you bring your examples its ok, when I bring up mine its rambling. Gotta love that Stormie hypocrisy there. BTW, other posts have turned up which I am sure you will consider derailment as well. Have fun playing amateur mod.

You are the one who started with the talk about "the left" and Rachel Maddow, that is why I called it rambling. I was merely responding to points you made, which is why it was not rambling.

[mr friendly guy]

You should have stated that you don't think they should censor Tiananmen when TRR first brought it up to avoid confusion. And I don't think anyone complaining about Russian meddling is calling for a ban on Facebook (in this thread at least).

It came up as the logical consequence if Facebook cannot be regulated by countries which aren't America, before that discussion petered out. Did you read the thread? Oh wait.

I was objecting to your claim that "the left" is in favour of America intervening in other countries and using Rachel Maddow is an example. Do you have any hard evidence that more members of "the left" are in favour of foreign intervention than opposed? Some polls perhaps?

Firstly, the original post was referring to Leftist who were complaining about Russiagate eg Maddow as one. So I am talking about Leftists who subscribe to Russiagate and who either favour intervention or turn a blind eye when its done to someone else would be hypocritical. As I said, if you're on the left and don't subscribe to Russiagate, you won't be hypocritical or if you don't believe in doing the same intervention, then you won't.

Are they objecting to countries that censor Facebook, or countries that ban it. And are all the people who complain about Russian interference calling for censorship/a ban on Facebook? Or are they calling for Facebook to flag certain content (while still letting people read it).

So you want me to list views of every Leftist on Facebook, when you don't want to talk about Facebook censorship (which you say later). Ok. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?

The problem with this argument is that many people in "the left" would argue that "the left" is does hold power in the American government and that most democrats are centrists rather than members of "the left". You seem to confuse holding power in "the left" with holding power in the government. So let me ask you again, what does in it mean to hold power in "the left", as opposed to holding power in government?

That's kind of irrelevant to what I have said already.

My point is that your original question was silly. No sensible person, left or right, would call for "no interference whatsoever" (your words) because it is 100% impossible in today's globalized world.

When most people say they are against interference they mean that they are against interference to reasonable means. I was simply pointing out that it is impossible for their to be "no interference whatsoever" in today's globalized world. What you should have said was "no interference to a reasonable degree". Now please answer my original questions: Do you have any evidence that interventionist members of "the left" outnumber isolationist members of "the left"? And are we just referring to "the left" in America or "the left" internationally. What do you mean when you say "the left"?

See this is why you're a pretty disingenuous moron. Words mean different things when its convenient for you. You're arguing by changing definitions, rather than by logical consequences. Most people say against interference they mean they are against interference to reasonable means, but then you magically assume when I use the word, I meant in the broad definition which you laid out, the definition which I remind you includes simply trading, EVEN THOUGH MY OWN POSTING HISTORY SHOWS I AM A PROPONENT FOR TRADE. This is so you can say hah hah, look saying "no interference whatsoever" is silly because I am using another definition of the word. Then when I turn your broad definition (not mine, yours) against you, you then change the definition to a more narrow one. Sorry, you chose to use such a broad definition, it killed your other premise about Leftist being against intervention. Thanks for playing.

And in the context of "no interference whatsoever", the whole quote was - "How many of these say no interference whatsoever, as opposed to interference via military means." This was to point out your counter example, was flawed because it only focussed on people who didn't favour military intervention, but does not preclude them using other forms. So your counter example was stupid. We could have debated what forms those interference took, but you seem more interested to change the debate to the definition of what interference means.

The problem with your argument is that you have no evidence that the majority of the people complaining about Russian interference think that censorship/banning Facebook is the appropriate way to deal with the problem, as opposed to the cure being worse than the disease.

That doesn't actually affect my position per se. For one thing, my position was it could be done only if regulation fails. I have stated that like how many times already now?

And I won't ask a mode to split because I have no desire to engage in a debate about the merits Facebook censorship, rather I wished to call out your behaviour.

So what you been doing if not engaging in a debate about Facebook censoring. But here is the thing. You're too fucking stupid to tell that discussing possible solutions to a problem raised by the OP, with examples of countries (plural there, got to watch out for the plural) who have tried implementing it, is not a derail. If you think there is a derail, the usual thing is to ask a mod to split so the original thread isn't cluttered up. But I think we both know the reason you won't, and its not just that you're a coward.

Although I am curious, why aren't you calling out others like say Railin or Aerius for derail using the same broad standards? I am serious. Did I accidentally smack you down in some other thread that you're still butthurt over it? I can't recall you see.

Lots of countries engage of Facebook censorship but China is the most well know, and is the best at, internet censorship. Combine this with your history of defending China in this board and it is reasonable for one to assume that you are talking about China.

So you're wrong, you didn't follow links, you couldn't tell the difference between use of singular and plural, but you're still trying to make yourself come off reasonable. Here is a tip. Own up and just admit you misread what I wrote. But we know that won't happen.

You are the one who started with the talk about "the left" and Rachel Maddow, that is why I called it rambling. I was merely responding to points you made, which is why it was not rambling.

Says the man who set up a side argument to define interference so broadly that he includes people who engage in trade as interfering and then changes it when convenient. You suffer from a serious lack of self awareness. The funny thing is, what you did fits the definition of rambling, ie changing from subject to subject. Sometimes the comedy just writes itself.

[stormthebeaches]

It came up as the logical consequence if Facebook cannot be regulated by countries which aren't America, before that discussion petered out. Did you read the thread? Oh wait.

Just because Russian used Facebook to influence an election it doesn't mean that banning/censoring Facebook is the appropriate response. Mainly because it could be used as an excuse for totalitarian governments to silence dissent. The cure would be worse than the disease.

Firstly, the original post was referring to Leftist who were complaining about Russiagate eg Maddow as one. So I am talking about Leftists who subscribe to Russiagate and who either favour intervention or turn a blind eye when its done to someone else would be hypocritical. As I said, if you're on the left and don't subscribe to Russiagate, you won't be hypocritical or if you don't believe in doing the same intervention, then you won't.

No, you originally referred to the left as a collective by referring to it as "the left". You should have specified but saying what exact type of leftists you are referring to be saying something like "liberal interventionists" or even "mainstream democrats" but instead you just said "the left". "The left" can include anything from mainstream democrats to full blown Marxists.

So you want me to list views of every Leftist on Facebook, when you don't want to talk about Facebook censorship (which you say later). Ok. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?

My point is that the people can complain about Russian interference and be against other countries censoring Facebook without being hypocritical because they could believe that censoring Facebook is not the appropriate method of stopping interference by Russia (or any country, for that matter).

That's kind of irrelevant to what I have said already.

You said that the Justice Democrats didn't hold power in "the left" because their weren't enough of them holding government positions to get their policies past. As I pointed out, you described holding power in government, not holding power in "the left". So let me ask you again, what does it mean to hold power in "the left"? Or will you admit that your original statement of certain people holding power in "the left" was silly seeing as "the left" consists of thousands of political parties across the planet, with very different political beliefs.

See this is why you're a pretty disingenuous moron. Words mean different things when its convenient for you. You're arguing by changing definitions, rather than by logical consequences. Most people say against interference they mean they are against interference to reasonable means, but then you magically assume when I use the word, I meant in the broad definition which you laid out, the definition which I remind you includes simply trading, EVEN THOUGH MY OWN POSTING HISTORY SHOWS I AM A PROPONENT FOR TRADE. This is so you can say hah hah, look saying "no interference whatsoever" is silly because I am using another definition of the word. Then when I turn your broad definition (not mine, yours) against you, you then change the definition to a more narrow one. Sorry, you chose to use such a broad definition, it killed your other premise about Leftist being against intervention. Thanks for playing.

And in the context of "no interference whatsoever", the whole quote was - "How many of these say no interference whatsoever, as opposed to interference via military means." This was to point out your counter example, was flawed because it only focussed on people who didn't favour military intervention, but does not preclude them using other forms. So your counter example was stupid. We could have debated what forms those interference took, but you seem more interested to change the debate to the definition of what interference means.

When most people say "no interference" they mean "no interference to a reasonable degree" rather than "no interference whatsoever". This is because "no interference whatsoever is impossible" and if you interpret "no interference" to mean "no interference whatsoever" then everything would be "interference" which would make the term so broad it would be meaningless. If you had said "How many of these say no interference in general, as opposed to interference via military means" I would have interpreted it to mean no interference to a reasonable degree. But you didn't say that. You said "How many of these say no interference whatsoever, as opposed to interference via military means." I interpreted "no interference whatsoever" to mean "no interference whatsoever". I then correctly pointed out that "no interference whatsoever" impossible in today's globalized world, and no sane person on any part of the political spectrum would advocate it because it is impossible. At this point you should have said something like "I meant no interference to a reasonable degree". Basically, you should clarify what you mean by "interference".

That doesn't actually affect my position per se. For one thing, my position was it could be done only if regulation fails. I have stated that like how many times already now?

You seemed to be arguing that people who complained about Russian interference whilst also complaining about other countries regulating Facebook were hypocrites. I took issue with this. Even if regulation fails I would still be against censoring social media to stop foreign interference because I feel that it could be used as a excuse for totalitarian governments to crack down on dissent. The cure would be worse than the disease.

So what you been doing if not engaging in a debate about Facebook censoring. But here is the thing. You're too fucking stupid to tell that discussing possible solutions to a problem raised by the OP, with examples of countries (plural there, got to watch out for the plural) who have tried implementing it, is not a derail. If you think there is a derail, the usual thing is to ask a mod to split so the original thread isn't cluttered up. But I think we both know the reason you won't, and its not just that you're a coward.

Although I am curious, why aren't you calling out others like say Railin or Aerius for derail using the same broad standards? I am serious. Did I accidentally smack you down in some other thread that you're still butthurt over it? I can't recall you see.

As mentioned before, you seemed to be arguing that people who complained about Russian interference whilst also complaining about other countries regulating Facebook were hypocrites. I have already explained why I took issue with this. China is one of many countries that engages in social media censorship, but it is the most well know. Combine this with the fact that given that you frequently defend China on this board and it is reasonable to assume that you were talking about China. Just because you used the plural it doesn't mean you weren't talking about China. China could have been one of many countries you were referring to when you used the plural. And I haven't called out Railing or Aerius because their posts aren't as long or numerous as yours, and because they haven't made as many posts as you.

And calling someone a coward for how they conduct themselves on a internet debate You are aware that it is impossible to be brave or cowardly on anonymous internet debates because they have no affect on the participants in their real lives, right?

So you're wrong, you didn't follow links, you couldn't tell the difference between use of singular and plural, but you're still trying to make yourself come off reasonable. Here is a tip. Own up and just admit you misread what I wrote. But we know that won't happen.

China could have been one of the many countries you were referring to when you used the plural. It would be strange to have a conversation about internet censorship and not mention China when China is the most well known for, and is the best at, the practice.

Says the man who set up a side argument to define interference so broadly that he includes people who engage in trade as interfering and then changes it when convenient. You suffer from a serious lack of self awareness. The funny thing is, what you did fits the definition of rambling, ie changing from subject to subject. Sometimes the comedy just writes itself.

As I mentioned up above, when most people say "no interference" they mean "no interference to a reasonable degree" rather than "no interference whatsoever". This is because "no interference whatsoever is impossible" and if you interpret "no interference" to mean "no interference whatsoever" then everything would be "interference" which would make the term so broad it would be meaningless. If you had just said, "no interference" or "no interference in general" I would have interpreted that to mean "no interference to a reasonable degree" but you instead said "no interference whatsoever" which I interpreted to mean "no interference whatsoever".