In the past week I’ve been absolutely roasted for criticising two different countries. Normally I’d be okay with that, I can handle a mild toasting and after all debate is a good thing.
On both occasions though I was flamed for mentioning human rights issues that are established facts and have been known for many, many years. I was critical of the actions/laws of their governments and not the people, their race, religion, general political ideology or nationality.
On both occasions I was bombarded by long posts that parroted propaganda, and in the case of one country I was told (on multiple occasions) that I was ignorant, racist and even fascist for mentioning the issues I did. I’m not complaining about how I was treated, but as a reminder, I was discussing internationally-recognised human rights concerns that can be verified and based in fact.
I could just be paranoid but I’m fairly convinced the responses weren’t from patriotic citizens. I think they were paid trolls or bots, and I think their purpose was to quiet negative talking points about the countries that were mentioned.
Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Why does it matter if the responses are from patriotic citizens or not?
“Bad faith” is lunacy, who cares? Arguments matter all on their own, regardless of the motivation for making them.
Of course you “think” they are paid trolls or bots, we all see that constantly. My first post on Reddit years ago was followed immediately by charges of being a Russian spy. Maybe they were a Russian spy and I was diversion?
Anyway, troll, bot, human, paid or not, irrelevant. The discussion is seen by others and judged on the merit of the argument itself. Stop worrying about the source, as you can never know, so it doesn’t matter. It’s not as if you get better results by talking to an unpaid patriotic person. Same shit.
Propaganda problem? Not at all. Every form of social media is rife with propaganda, as is every paper, website, news channel, and so on. How could Lemmy be any different?
The mentality that everything is an opinion and all opinions are valid is an sign of acute internet brainrot.
The truth actually exists. You’ve spent too much time on the internet if you think in terms of “choose your own reality”.
I think the point there is that the random opinions are valid because they are just opinions. Either they’re based on wrong or incomplete information or they aren’t. If you can get past that hurdle the discourse can offer corrections or fill in the blanks.
The arguments being made either have merit or they don’t. The ones with merit would approach that truth you mentioned, and the ones that don’t obscure it. If that makes any sense.