So now the goalposts have moved from "stupidly confrontational or promoting known conspiracy theories" to the vague "obvious and boring, very incendiary, technically dense, and not easily argued" (flagging purely factual statements as "very incendiary" is, of course, the original complaint!).

But I'm genuinely confused - you say my last comment was incorrect. Can you explain how saying that someone would have tried to stop Jews from fleeing Nazis, doesn't create the impression in the average reader that that someone isn't Jewish?

The claim isn't even grounded in any kind of reality - Loomer frequently advocates for Jewish and Israeli interests - i.e. for her own people:

According to Loomer, she was banned for a tweet about Omar in which Loomer called her "anti-Jewish," [..] According to Media Matters, Loomer has said that "if you don't vote for Donald Trump, then you just hate this country." Loomer claims that the Democratic Party is supportive of Jews "getting wiped off the face of the Earth" and that Jews who vote for Democrats "might as well just go put yourself in a gas chamber yourself if this is how you're gonna behave." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and Zionist Islamophobe, denies Israel's genocide in Gaza, spreads dehumanizing narratives that frame Palestinians as inherent terrorists, and calls for their ethnic cleansing to bolster Israel's settler-colonial project and genocide. - https://www.reversecanarymission.org/person/laura-loomer

Laura Loomer, the far-right media figure, has emerged as one of the president’s most aggressive, pro-Israel enforcers. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/us/politics/israel-maga-r...

Why would we think she'd switch sides in 1940? Nor do I see how the existence of an extremely niche ("Contemporary estimates range from 3,000 to 10,000 members.") organization changes any of this - can you walk me through your logic?

1. There's no "false equivalence", just dispelling the false impression that attacks on science are remotely new. The parent's statement claimed this was a change, so yes it does engage with it.

2. Only someone actively trying not to understand, can't spot the double-standards. If reading 1-2 sentence titles and comparing them is too much, then I simply can't help you.

3. If by "a childish and illegitimate claim", you're referring to the part about trying to claim credit for destroying science, that's just a (very obvious) rhetorical flourish. If you mean the part about academia destroying science itself, the rest, that you didn't bother to read, are all sources showing how exactly it's doing that.

4. I'm not expecting them to read the whole article - the title and subtitle would suffice. What makes the claim hollow? And yes, I did articulate my own thoughts - that's what the "hollow claim" was.

In essence, you're demanding that my posts should do the thinking for the reader. Not just lead them to water, but force them to drink too. Since you're clearly being deliberately obtuse, I'll spare you from further replies.

Nothing you're claiming seems worthy of being flagged, sounds more like you're personally bothered by the content of those comments.