I mean go ahead and figure it out for yourself. You're allowed to figure out how you feel about someone by how you feel about their clearly communicated positions. He's entitled to feel the way he feels and you're entitled to argue for or against his positions? If somebody is calling for a ban on subjectively bad positions I'd say that's problematic. But the post history is used as a tool to decide how you feel about the context of their last post. It's possible to restrict who sees your posts but if you believe in - and can back up / what you're saying then go ahead and say it. If your post history creates contradictory or intellectually dishonest positions or suspicious negative space, then go ahead and adapt.
But if you're asking me to accept that a vaguely corrected but otherwise vitally uncontested correction of a single news story is the first example of REAL fake news then... I mean. Come on? I'm not saying he's an alt or a bot or a troll* but if he's literally suggesting no fake news happened until today then go ahead and defend that position.
The poster can defend himself and his history speaks for itself, no? He can make his own case against the following summary:
My objective argument is that the buzzfeed story has not actually been refuted or denied by Mueller, but rather firmly redefined in one admittedly important semantic aspect, and that the poster you're defending (sort of) is hilariously wrong to suggest that "finally, after all this, a real fake news happened and it was the Libs!"
I expect buzzfeed to update but they need to clarify the gap between "Characterization of facts" and the naked facts themselves.
Meuller's statement has not refuted the story, but rather the inferred accusation of specific individual intent. I have no doubt it's important but it's very precise and granular.
