What do you call a bad faith argument adopted by somebody in good faith?
"perfectly ordinary political discou..." oh wait, no that isn't right.
I don't know. Not astroturfing though, that has implications that the people arguing don't believe what they are saying and are just in it for a cheque.
Ok so what do you call the mass of people that includes:
1. In it for the cheque. 2. Believe the people who are in it for the cheque.
Given that there's very rarely an easy way to tell them apart and 2 follows 1?
Honest question.
I would lean towards calling it a wave of astroturfing given that 2 doesnt happen without 1 and 2 and 1 are inseparable, but I can potentially see the argument for using different terminology if there is something more precise.
What, though?
>It is likely that the attacks on Assange were all in good faith.
Then we got the Snowden leaks and that prior had to be updated...
The fact that bad people are certainly involved doesn't change the likelihood that good people were involved. I know a few anti-Snowden types in real life. They're fine people, just not very good at predicting consequences.
It is likely that the attacks on Assange were all in good faith. Still baseless though, the fellow has all but secured his place in the history books as a hero at this point.