As someone who used to have similar views(Ukraine, xinjiang, etc), the answer lies in Western propaganda. I think it’s because of the the reporting on these issues often includes facts that are deeply woven in to the propaganda, in a way that approaching the subjects the same way you would other news can easily lead you astray. Combine this with the fact that Western audiences are not going to be familiar with the subject matter, materialist analysis becomes actively difficult using strategies that will probably serve you well on other issues.

The way I realized my error is that I pulled a Marxist Descartes, where I did not trust any Us Media sources and rebuild my opinions from scratch using international and academic sources.

Don’t forget the possibility of refusing to identify yourself. Without an identity there is no way to bill you. So you just leave and the hospital has no way to contact you. This is the path taken by many, especially the poor.

That would be interesting data to take a look at. I assume most use lemmy similar to myself, where you mostly scroll through all federated instances and don’t pay attention to the source unless necessary (except lemmygrad). But I’m open to being proven wrong.

Hopefully I’m packitng to the choir here, but passing with a VPN is also a good idea.

In many cases I think that it’s still worth it. Even if someone does not engage in good faith, we can still explain ideas in accessible ways not necessarily for the benefit of the post office to which you are replying, but for the benefit of onlookers. I’ve heard discussions at length, especially in the context of twitter, that making arguments for the audience is an effective strategy at convincing people who may be on the fence.

No even if the only thing we can communicate is that we are not unthinking drones paid by the CPC, this can go a long way in promoting an interest in Marxism.

Others being said, I think anyone is perfectly justified in not engaging with trolls simply because it’s not your job and you don’t want to do it.

I think what’s particularly insidious about this article are the underlying assumptions. To understand why it considers the results of the study it examines striking you need to conceptualize society in a strict hierarchy. The wealthy and intellectuals at the top who are above things like racism, sexism, and the like. And the bottom, with the lowbrow and ignorant commoners who are susceptible to such things. The essential assumption is that those at the top are too good for these disgusting opinions, when most reasonable people know that’s not the case.

Ultimately, this goes back to the marketing that made racism “unacceptable” in the United States. It’s crime, is not being unjust, it’s being common. The flaw of the poor, uneducated whites. The proper response, of course, is to dilute every culture and ethnicity, through capital, into being pseudowhite torch bearers of the cause of liberalism.

These people remind me of Americans that insist that they don’t have an accent.