you can easily identify how often their opinions are feelings-charged
This is built into the talking points themselves. It advances their influence operation because you can't logic yourself out of something you emotioned yourself into. Even after you learn new facts that correct the original logic the original feelings are still there. It also lets you turn counterargument into feelings vs feelings which is a quagmire that stops you from losing 3rd party support from the argument. Finally if real live humans are sitting on the other end of the argument you can use up their emotional capacity and get them to abandon the thread and topic for awhile.
I can't figure out whether one side is simply incapable of realizing that their failed use of ChatGPT makes their arguments noncredible but continues on anyways because it's government money, or whether these cases are the opposite side trying a sort of reverse psychology through strawman arguments.
You said the natives deserved to be slaughtered by Americans.
ctrl+f "slaughter"
0 results by any other id
is this a bot subthread that got confused about who said what? y'all need more context tokens