How it’s presented in coverage and online discourse is being used as an example for the actual main topic.
This is my point. The topic is the scale of effectiveness of propaganda—I’m sure OP is like, “wtf have I caused” rn.
So all that information you just gave me about further details of an example that could’ve been any topic, kind of shows a scale of the effectiveness of propaganda. You’ve attempted to include Russian use of propaganda in there—kind of almost back on topic—but it’s still got nothing to do with the topic in general. The passion and the assumption, the need to tell me stuff you know about insert example as though I challenged it, when I simply mentioned it, without bias, as an example.
This is why I have confidence some pro-Russian person is seething ready to go as well and tell me all the stuff they’ve read on their side of news and social media, even though I’m not asking for or even indicating to wanting a discussion or opinions about the bloody Ukraine War.
“You are not immune to propaganda.”
Edit: Mate. Seriously. I called this out as a precursor and you quoted it. I thought you were going to give some insight on better discerning it.
Edit Edit: Also, sorry if I sound like an asshole. I’m think I’m really good at that without realising. Reddit trauma, maybe. I’d buy you a beer and have chats I could :)