Oh, please don't get me wrong, Michael_Michaelangelo -- I didn't mean to suggest that posters of threads here ought to be in the censorship business. Personally, I like to see as full and complete a public record as possible captured in real time. Especially since many of our collaborators here are first-rate thinkers and experts in their fields.
On the other hand, I can relate to your observation that stuff like this is often funny. [In present circumstances, not to a Darwinist, though.]
Believe it or not, I lurk more than I post. And that's probably because there is a certain type of post around here that is so totally "out of control" that one does not dare to put one's foot in.
And those are precisely the most hilarious, laugh-out-loud, cry-till-it-hurts threads at FR, bar none.
And a day without laughter is like a day without sunshine: One just progressively "wilts."
So here we have two putative "public goods": (1) a [putative] standard of truth; and (2) the [putative] requirements of human sanity. :^) How to reconcile the two, in the proper balance that best conduces to the well-being of human life -- and that of the wider sphere in which humans operate?
That is the open question that no censorship policy will help answer.
But on the other hand, as a poster/sponsor of a thread, it probably wouldn't hurt anything plainly to point out the polemical or propagandist aspects of the work you're posting. JMHO FWIW
Yes. I would agree with that. Hardly any perspective is without its own spin, rationalizations, extended explanation, propaganda...
It would be nice to point them out. Sometimes if you're a part of the group, you don't even recognize it as propaganda. And, if you're outside the group, it takes a while to get to know them well enough to recognize how exactly they're spinning things.
Amway is a case study. :>)