Astroturfing: Maybe… but also, we don’t need to ascribe to malice what is explainable with just flat, sheer stupidity. Though it could be that too.

Between the two though, the latter is far more damaging imho. That gets perfectly illustrated in every zombie movie ever where the giant horde of zombies lies outside awaiting to devour everyone inside of a safe space, and inevitably someone who is just literally that dumb tells themselves “but surely they won’t eat my face off!?”, and proceeds to open the door, which promptly gets everyone inside killed, often while they are literally sleeping & thus absolutely defenseless, b/c they trusted the guards to protect them and thus let down their guard to rest.

The “other”, the “enemy”, can only do so much to harm us. It is when the call comes from inside the house that the real danger begins. Like, if you wanted to destroy something large - a nation, a religion, a movement - the best way is not to go at it with a gun, but to join it instead, and subvert it from the inside. Look at e.g. Google that “helped” the development of Android, or how people are releasing genetically-modified mosquitos to help combat malaria. So if e.g. Russia wanted to bring down e.g. the USA, it could… oh, I dunno, let’s say send over Fox News, then wait a few decades for that bomb to go off. It would be quite effective. Not only would it disable American interference in Russia’s agenda - e.g. as it conquers other nations such as Ukraine but also does many other activities e.g. in the Middle East - but that process could at best even convert your former foe into an actual, full-on ally. Even on purely theoretical grounds, what could possibly be more beneficial for your side than to not merely deny resources to your enemy but to actively increase your own capabilities? There are a LOT of advantages to having a friend, perhaps second only to e.g. doubling your own power (and even that only from the perspective that people such as Putin seem to ascribe to, whereas many people who think differently would actively prefer the opposite as in the former over the latter).

Russia is known for funding the extremes on both sides of hot-button issues. By making every movement into a grotesque version of itself, they foment division, and regardless of what those particular issues are (abortion, LBGTQIA+ rights, guns, who even cares), that division is the real point. For example, although this one is just me guessing, who came up with that name to “defund the police”?!? Democrats were talking about increasing funding, and listening to the very people who know the most about the situation - the police officers themselves - who unequivocally state that they feel unprepared to go in and handle the “mental health” types of scenarios. That is by far what gets the majority of police killed - like as you turn to arrest the husband that was beating the wife & kids, suddenly the wife is stabbing you from behind to defend him, even when she was the one who made the call in the first place. That shit is traumatic AF, and those officers that survive such a scenario most often quit. So how did the liberal movement to help police suddenly get twisted into sounding & even doing the polar opposite of that? And using statistics that are the exact opposite of true - e.g. Trump gained support among police by going around telling them the “feels like” statement that >90% of murders are due to interracial crime… except the true statistic is <9% iirc (specifically white-black at the time was I believe 3-6%).

For the anti-vax scenario, and this one I’m not guessing on b/c we’ve literally traced this propaganda back to Russian troll farms, they similarly warped the agenda not from “the vaccine is new and relatively untested, b/c of the unprecedented speed with which it was developed” but all the way over to “the vaccine is dangerous and if you truly cared about people you should even prevent them from taking it even if they desperately want it for themselves (e.g. by violently destroying the batches)”. How is that about “their” rights to not take a potentially “dangerous” substance, when they are actively preventing others from making that choice for themselves?

So anyway, yeah, even liberal propaganda can be as bad as conservative - even if Republican politicians are acting far more dangerously than Democrat ones i.e. obstructionism. I can never find this quote anymore, but at one point around the time when the pandemic status was being officially ended in the USA (despite how the WHO says that it is still on-going), someone (I thought it was the FDA Director, or something along those lines?) said that “the greatest killer in the USA today is stupidity”. Heart attacks from the way people eat, car crashes from the way we drive, soon we can perhaps add planes falling from the sky, obviously all the easily-preventable diseases where people barge into hospitals (sometimes, heart-breakingly, waving actual guns at the staff) demanding cures for despite having passed all the possibilities for such in the past by refusing to prevent it even knowing that no cure for it exists once the condition is entered into, and ofc we will soon need to start adding the effects of climate change e.g. heat exhaustion, and ofc already we can add senior abuse aka “excess deaths” during the pandemic that somehow “wasn’t real”.

Anyway, I kinda went off the deep end there didn’t I? :-P At the end, all we can do is our best, as we try to move forward.

Oh, and yeah, I used to try to have these kinds of conversations, but long before I left Reddit I had already long ceased that. There is only so much complaining at “walls of werds” you can hear before you realize that what you are offering is not being received, thus obviously the only friendly thing to do was to stop. I too would have GREAT discussions even on Facebook - I don’t know if I ever convinced anyone of anything, but even so it was wonderful to hear from e.g. a conservative who was an actual social worker and so who had the potential to inform me better than my more theoretical analysis of a subject (although my point in turn there was that stats do not lie, as in a few counter-examples do not mean that a trend in the opposite direction does not exist). Those kinds of discussions in full friendliness and mutual respect, regardless of the outcome, are part of the spice of life for me, and may I just say “fuck Reddit” once again for having spoiled them by enshittifying their platform, e.g. by turning away (and in some cases actively booting) the mods - which started to happen long before Rexit by continually ignoring the mods asks to allow even already-existing moderation tools, b/c it was not in line with their profit model:-(.

So, you can respond to any or all or none of this, in any timeframe, but in any case I do hope it was somewhat interesting:-).

I’m not stalking you… honest ;-) “Left, right and centre” have always existed on a spectrum. Like you (I think) I’m left wing compared to an ultra nationalist, for example, but compared to a “tankie” I’m… whatever insult they want to throw my way. The key thing is “left” in itself is also a kind of spectrum; there’s an enormous difference between Stalin’s collectivisation of Soviet agriculture versus free school meals for all. You’ve met some socialists or communists etc and you seem to have realised/decided they’re a bit too left for you. Therefore it seemed reasonable to guess you were a little bit left as opposed to being full-on red flag waving left. This rant is just trying to say that there’s an entire sliding scale of left (and right) and it’s not about being 100% anything. Slightly or a bit left of middle seemed about where you might be.

Not as wild as their lack of self-awareness.