host

Well....we could attempt to compensate for the "that's just our opinion" limitation, when we post on these, or any other threads in internet forums, by sharing how "we know, what we know"..... I do that by posting excerpts (with links) of articles, or entire articles. The reason for that is that much content is archived, sometimes within days of when it is posted "free" online, behind "pay to retrieve" "walls" on many sites that offer timely news reporting and or commentary.

I try to highlight the most salient points with "bold" tags. The feedback that I get is that the way "I do it", is not too popularly received. Ironically, most prefer reading what I think amounts to short posts with no citations or links, no clues of the origins of the influences upon those posters who might just as well be "talking out their asses", given how little that they offer to substantiate how they "know" what they post that they "know".

I suspect that the posted opinions of these folks are legitimized by readers who have a preconceived leaning towards agreement with the unsubstantiated opinions posted. They seem to function in a "closed loop" where "everybody knows", or "of course this is so...." that renders them resistant to contrary opinion backed by solid referenced citations.

They make it clear that they don't want to read anything that is "too long". There is a strong preference that encourages one to "tell us what you think, in your own words"......but....aren't there enough people doing that, already?
Do posts that accomplish that, and only that, do the same thing that I try to do, but leave out the "how I know what I know" is because of this news reporting, from this source, which impresses me as reputable because....or from this excerpt from this report, produced by the independent inspector general of this non-partisan......

Ordinary people do not want to be provided with several ways to potentially challenge a given poster's opinion....which can easily done if a cited reference is authored by someone of questionable reputation, or originates from an information distribution channel (a website, a publisher, a news gathering agency, a shill front, financed by lobbyists or an industry, or by a PR firm representing them, or by a PR firm with a contract from DOD, DHS, or CIA....)
...or contains "facts" easily disputed by findings of numerous other "experts".

Ordinary people seem to accept or reject everything at "face" value....the way TV's Judge Judy gives equal weighting to every bit of unsubstantiated "testimony" produced in her TV "court" room. The result is that they remain ordinary....and they seem to like it that way. The downside is that they elect the leadership that we are stuck with now....they surrender constitutional rights, without a whimper, in exchange for "security", and they unquestioningly and enthusiastically support the jingoistic bullshit that manifests itself in religiously flavored nationalism and patriotism that suits the needs for manpower in the "army of one", commanded by the "decider".

Ordinary is incurious and resolute, and the highest result is often, at best, IMO....mediocrity.