Maybe probs

@ZoomerXIV Was the racism something that attracted you or something you had to work through to get on board? Or was it actually the cosplay dork stuff that drew you in? 🤦🏾‍♂️

Counter-Intel lesson there's been too much to stop and talk about it all but important stuff demands the time linked x.com/MaybeProbs/sta… is an individual I will analyze and provide the lens to how to apply counter-intel frameworks to your online interactions This person, is not - legit. For lack of a better word. Organic, Natural, Real - all lose meaning when dealing with mid level operators or higher (like spooks) Many become their identity, or in part incorporate an identity they have well modeled (like from acquaintances or friends). The first point I'd like to state, is that this person is not as easy to spot as the dozen of other obvious disinformation & counter-intel. Some are bots, so now that that's cleared to the tells > The whataboutism deflection was a logical fallacy that immediately presented an illegitimate premise. A real person, is vulnerable to reasoning by emotion or other logical fallacies. The difference between accidentally making a logical fallacy and masterfully deflecting a framing is a queue that the person is skilled at persuasion/debate. A whataboutism, in regards to "racisms" should itself be a queue as well. The character breaks, in this case look for yourself to know what I mean. Double Whammy on that pitch. Next biggest queue is the trendline, it's easy to tell bots & hasbara accounts from the masses; but accounts like this? They're the type to moralize you while acting like they're real (this could very well be ran by multiple people, in which case it is it is likely very few due to the structure) To look real. This account's trendline behavior, was not normal, not real. Know it when you see it. The brand they've developed is obtuse and not a typical online persona, or like a real person. In addition to the abnormality of the brand it has other flags which are of significance, like "centrist-dissident" and a reluctance to engage reasonably on the depths of "racism" which they themselves instigate conversation on, repeatedly. (You would think they would have this topic mastered) Furthermore, in a completely character inconsistent manner. Why do mid-level operators engage in counter-intel to low-medium reach posts? Was this person's goal, to change the opinion of racists? or was the person baiting to solicit extremist rhetoric? (an exact claim you see being thrown at PF right now btw) I think the gist I'm getting at here is, if given the above as truths - what then are the intentions of the behavior witnessed? This with statistical support can be deduced as a trend line behavior of framing & steering. The person does not engage honestly, or in good faith. They are not debating with reason or logic. At times they practice emotional reasoning to garner sympathy but again their principles are not their own so they do not even logically extend the emotional arguments premise & debate's position. They just (in this case) disengage. DNE (Do Not Engage) Why is framing so important? When pressed on the idea of voluntary association, the "racist" baiter seemed to lose frame momentarily. This is because arguments which are illegitimate must be framed in fallacious or illegitimate positions to be most effective. Like, reasoning by emotion. While typing this the subject responded, In this response are a clear reframing of the points of discussion (as previously mentioned) "Quite different things" no response to the substance of the equivocations & fallacies in their argument. I won't make this a post about logically finishing the content which sparked an uncovering of an asset, What can be stated on counter-intel is the importance of prediction & assessment. The predictability of managed assets / operators is much higher than normal people. I predicted the response and began this post because, I know what I am saying (in regards to their goals) They won't, be reasoned with or made to see "my goals". That's not because we have "differences" in ideology, it's because the person is not there to sway my opinion. They are there to sway your opinion. That is why every comment, is to reframe my point. Ironically, they even make a remark on the "difference of opinions" in their 2nd reply of this thread. That pretext is to nullify any attempts at directly "settling differences" because it will always create openings to reframe your argument. Counter-intel isn't always the term to describe the actions of somebody, performing analysis or disinformation on a subject of interest / intelligence nature. Counter-intel in this case, is the object of reframing the points of those who would "reason" with this individual. They are not there, to change the minds of people that engage them. They are there to change the minds of you.

@Arcmosis What do you mean by voluntary association and why do you believe I don’t support it? I’ve got no illusions that you care at all what I consider racism.

@Arcmosis You’ve got it all figured out. I’ve been clear about association vs weeding out those you dislike based on race. Quite different things. First is fine…have at it. Second is gonna be an issue, obviously. Your inability to call out obvious racism is fun. Be well, friend.