Mike Casey (@mikeymanu)

If I used your tactics, which probaby wouldn't stop to, I'd write this. Note no naming names and no calling up the tribe, the followers, to act against you. On Debate, Disagreement, and the Limits of “Dialogue” Recently, I engaged with a Substack piece that explored the use of AI in journalism around the Gaza conflict. I asked questions—direct, critical, and, yes, challenging. I didn’t attack anyone personally. I didn’t troll. I asked for clarity on methods, examples to support claims, and greater awareness of how bias and language shape narratives—especially in emotionally charged reporting. In response, the author published a post framing my engagement as rhetorical manipulation and bad faith. The comments that followed largely echoed this, accusing me of trolling, using AI to “discredit” her, and worse. Few addressed my actual points. Almost none engaged with the politics I raised. Let me be clear: I welcome disagreement. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But disagreement means engaging with ideas—not deflecting into personal attacks or group pile-ons designed to shut conversation down. If someone believes I’ve misunderstood or misrepresented their work, I’m open to correction. But calling someone a troll just because they make you uncomfortable is not a rebuttal. It’s an evasion. I stand by my questions, and I stand by my right—and responsibility—to think critically, especially when public narratives about war, power, and technology are at stake. If anyone is still interested in discussing the political or ethical substance of what I raised, I’m here for it. If not, maybe that says more about the limits of your dialogue than mine.