[V-eHGsd_]

> So you are 1/3 right?

if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I go where the argument takes me. Is it my fault that OP did not actually check the background of the person they were defending on ( apparently based on this fact alone ) purely political grounds? No, how dare I actually read the article and, the horror, look up the person at the center of attention. After all, I am not supposed to do that. Facts are evil. My eyes will deceive me as it is likely Russian propaganda.

What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack.

<< I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.

How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining.

In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.

[V-eHGsd_]

this reads like an LLM generated argument. it's totally incoherent and has almost nothing to do with what's being discussed.

cheers, friend.