What is to prevent just about anybody who is acting in bad faith from hiding behind that emotion as a shield to justify all kinds of bad behaviour? Using this logic online means surrendering to any such party with bad intentions looking to benefit, such as the groups you mentioned in the following quote.

Yeah, that is absolutely a concern. You raise an excellent point. I'm just saying that you have to give the benefit of the doubt.

I actually want to show you an example of me arguing with someone that's a good example of that situation. She's criticizing Biden for reasons I think are kind of nuts, and brings up that she's queer, and then when she gets emotional about her argument it makes it hard for me to disagree because through some alchemy I'm going to look prejudiced if I try to tell her how wrong she is.

Is it possible she's an anti-Biden troll who's hiding behind a queer identity? Sure. But you have to give the benefit of the doubt and assume she's legit. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with her, you just have to do it within some parameters. I'm just saying that someone who's claiming to be representing Palestine, you have to give some massive, massive leeway. You can disagree factually while still respecting where they're coming from, or claiming to be coming from. Is it fair that it gives an advantage to the propaganda accounts? Not really. But that's the nature of the beast.

I am often accused of defaulting to accusations of someone being a Russian bot or something the instant they criticize Biden, but I do not at all, and I definitely don't recommend doing that. I'll make the accusation maybe once every 1-2 months if someone's being so laughably obvious that I think it's way beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe I shouldn't even do that, just as a blanket rule. I have more to say on that, but I want to think it over more. But anyway, at a minimum in almost all cases, I think taking people to be who they claim to be is the way you have to do it. And definitely more so when sensitive subjects are involved.

So, I actually can't link you to the example, for some ironic reasons, so I'll cut and paste. Leaving aside the part where I fucked it up and got overly person with her, which I definitely don't think I should have done, this is the good part of what I said, when this vulnerable person (according to her self report) was all upset about how the Democrats fucked up their policies and messaging and so lost the election and so now she's in danger under Trump:

I still think it would have been more productive for you to support the tiny number of sensible people in Washington, Sanders and friends, and try to give them enough power to withstand the great fuckening that the DNC is trying to give them. Or advocate for reforms like RCV that would give third parties some traction. Or just advocate for local justice and protest to make some progress how you can. I’m not saying you are not doing any of those things, but the only thing you have engaged me on so far is trying to make the argument that voting for the Democrats is a waste of time.

Let me put it this way: I don’t disagree with you about complicity by the Democrats in this whole death-cult of a government. If the car is sliding towards the cliff, and the controls that are supposed to stop it aren’t doing what they’re supposed to, that is not a good argument for completely abandoning the attempt to control the car. You vocally oppose the Democrats, and then are somehow blaming me when the non-Democrat who actively wants to endanger your safety comes to power instead of the person who merely wasn’t doing enough to stop it. You already can’t get a passport. If conditions in the US get actively urgently dangerous to your safety in the next four years, which they seem likely to, then it sounds to me like you have your own actions to blame more so than mine or other people who voted for Harris while also advocating for better than the Democrats.

So I get to make the point, and it works whether she's legit about who she claims to be, or not. If I just came in and made fun of her for being in danger now, that's fucked up. I did that a little bit, after, mostly borne out of genuine anger and bitterness because now I know some people who are definitely in real physical danger because of Trump, and so if she helped that happen, it's pretty fucking hard for me to stay even keeled about it. But the point is, I think engaging with people on the merits is almost always right, even if the result is sometimes unfair.