I was once involved in a business enterprise with a man who wasn't a native speaker

I had talked to a child about buying some of our stuff, and he was psyched about it and went off to fetch a parent to complete the transaction

I was talking with my colleague about it in the interim, and said of the kid "he was sold" as a way of summarizing his receptiveness to my pitch about our products

My colleague became very alarmed. What do you mean, sold? Who bought him? What do you mean?

It took a while to explain.

Yeah, makes sense. Like I say I think I chose my example poorly; it was just the first and most explicit thing that came to mind.

No... but I understand how I might have given that impression. I think the slrpnk community is kind of an outlier in that it actually does have some anti-electoralism that's a legit outgrowth of honest anarchism, that I honestly don't really have a problem with. I don't think that community is bots, Russian or otherwise, no. (Edit: Well... not all bots. I do think there are a couple propaganda accounts on slrpnk but that almost all of the discourse is organic, and the nature of the landscape means that the propaganda can afford to be a lot less obvious.)

For the most part, I actually think the propaganda accounts on Lemmy are more subtle than coming out and saying "don't vote." They say things like, both parties are the same, or "Genocide Joe," or they could never support a genocide, or it feels so unfair that we have to do this every four years and nothing ever changes, things like that. I just grabbed one random example to answer your question about, are they saying "don't vote".

Do you want me to find an example of something I think is explicit propaganda that is also explicitly saying "don't vote"? I can do that too; that one maybe poorly chosen example is just the first thing that popped into my mind.

1. I'm not aware of anyone who is in favor of voting who isn't also in favor of other means of social change. The conflation of the two (from the "don't vote" side) is exactly one of those doesn't-really-make-any-sense-at-all-but-does-produce-the-desired-result-if-carelessly-accepted nuggets of influential logic that I suspect is "specifically designed"
2. Some of them are saying "don't vote", yes

"Specifically designed" means exactly what you're saying it means. Nobody said Russians; they said artificial. This article gives a quick overview of what's been academically analyzed about it, which in my un-expert opinions is a few years' behind in terms of how it actually works in the modern day:

Already, there is strong evidence social media is being manipulated by these inflated bots to sway public opinion with disinformation – and it’s been happening for years.

In 2018, a study analysed 14 million tweets over a ten-month period in 2016 and 2017. It found bots on social media were significantly involved in disseminating articles from unreliable sources. Accounts with high numbers of followers were legitimising misinformation and disinformation, leading real users to believe, engage and reshare bot-posted content.

I can only speak for my observations on Reddit and Lemmy, but it is absolutely undeniable to me that there are fake users on both platforms who are pushing specific narratives, and I 100% believe that "don't vote it doesn't do anything" is one of them.

maybe if Democrats actually did stuff to make every day citizens lives better

$150 billion student loan forgiveness, first big action in climate change ever in US history, CHIPS act, infrastructure act, huge increase in corporate taxes to fund all that stuff, activists in charge of NLRB which gave fuel to all these union gains we've seen in recent years, recovery from covid like it never happened which basically no other first world country was able to do, gain in wages for low-income workers even adjusted for fairly massive inflation, medical debt off credit reports, net neutrality, plus also obviously not the end of democracy in the US is a nice bonus

(Not to say it isn't a problem the Democrats' general level of money-in-politics corruption, or their willingness to continue dogshit US policies like support for Israel. Both of those are massive problems. But saying that they don't do anything to make everyday citizens' lives better is, at least for the last few years, absolutely objectively false.)

The main problem isn't anything about what the Democrats actually do. It's that the priorities of the people who own the news, and the bots that run social media influence campaigns, are not at all aligned with those every day citizens, and so nobody even knows that any of that big list even happened.

I hope I have at least brought some entertainment to your working day. Have a good one

Honestly I was pretty impressed with the level of detail and accuracy it was able to come up with.

And yes I know that looking for productive conversation with this person is looking for sandwiches in a pigpen. I do feel like I wasted a little too much time on it yesterday, but I'm just entertaining myself at this point; this kind of thing is funny to me.

Why are you rejecting my good faith efforts to help you with productively engaging in the conversation

I typed up a whole report just for you Linkerbaan

Second message portion (2/2). This is the recommendations. If you want to keep talking with me, you can start with this section, answering some of the unanswered questions and following the recommendations on how you can engage more productively in the conversation. If you're open to doing that, then sure! Let's rap.

Chapter 4: Recommendations

Section 4.1: Questions for Linkerbaan to Address

• Substantive Responses to Specific Questions:

  • Provide direct answers to the specific questions posed by @mozz, particularly about the details of the UN report and the logic behind Linkerbaan's assertions regarding the treatment of hostages.

• Clarification of Evidence Claims:

  • Clarify which parts of the UN report allegedly debunk the entire report and explain how these sections invalidate the report's findings.

• Address Misrepresentation Concerns:

  • Respond to accusations of misrepresentation by either substantiating claims with concrete evidence or acknowledging any inaccuracies in previous statements.

Section 4.2: Steps for Productive Engagement

• Engage with Nuanced Points:

  • Engage directly with the nuanced points and specific queries raised by other users to foster a more informed and balanced discussion.

• Provide Clear Citations:

  • When making claims about the UN report or other sources, provide clear citations and quotes to support these claims and allow for transparent verification by other participants.

• Acknowledge Other Viewpoints:

  • Demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge and consider other viewpoints, even when they conflict with personal beliefs, to facilitate a more respectful and constructive dialogue.

This structured report aims to objectively assess the engagement of Linkerbaan in the specified comment chain, highlighting areas of evasion, misrepresentation, and providing constructive recommendations for future discussions.

My god dude. Okay, sure. This next is a two part message (1/2)

Me

I'd like you to create a report on Linkerbaan's level of good faith engagement in this comment chain. You'll have to be a little bit careful to observe the nested structure of the comments, which ones are replies to which, and then make a detailed report -- in the format of a formally structure report like a UN presentation of fact-finding, divided into chapters, sections, and then subsections where appropriate.

Some of the main chapters I'd like to include are:

• Unanswered questions: Things people asked Linkerbaan that they never responded substantively to
• Misrepresentation: Claiming that someone else said something, or some source said something, when it never happened that way
• Any others you feel are appropriate. Either positive or negative characterizations of Linkerbaan's engagements in the conversation would be appropriate as you determine.
• At the end, a concrete list of "recommendations" -- a bulleted list of things that would be good for Linkerbaan to answer, or provide, in order to move the conversation forward productively.

Here is the comment chain that I'd like you to summarize in that way. Bear in mind that the topic is a fairly sensitive topic.

(comment chain is redacted)

GPT

Report on the Engagement of Linkerbaan in the Comment Chain

Chapter 1: Unanswered Questions

Section 1.1: Key Instances of Unanswered Questions

• Question from @Belastend:

  • Original Question: "Who keeps blocking the real UN rape investigations again? Oh right, israel."
  • Response: Linkerbaan repeatedly redirected the conversation back to this point without addressing other questions asked by different users. For example, in response to a direct question about the UN report's evidence of sexual assault, Linkerbaan reverted to asking, "Why does israel keep blocking the UN investigation?" without providing substantive answers to the other points raised.

• Question from @mozz:

  • Original Questions:
    1. "Where in the report did you find information about how the hostages were treated?"
    2. "Can you explain more about the logic, why this would follow?"
    3. "What parts of the report are there that debunk the entire report?"
  • Response: Linkerbaan did not provide direct answers to these questions. Instead, they repeated their assertion that Israel is blocking a UN investigation without engaging with the specific questions asked.

Section 1.2: Repeated Evasion of Specific Queries

• Throughout the conversation, Linkerbaan consistently evaded specific queries about the details of the UN report and evidence presented within it. Despite repeated requests for clarification and specific details, Linkerbaan’s responses focused on a single point regarding Israel blocking investigations, without addressing the nuanced questions posed by other participants.

Chapter 2: Misrepresentation

Section 2.1: Misrepresentation of Sources

• Claim about the UN Report:
  • Original Claim by Linkerbaan: "Not sure why you keep citing a report that has no legal base. The only thing Patten concludes is that there is grounds to do a real investigation."
  • Misrepresentation: Linkerbaan's statement downplays the content of the UN report, which included findings of reasonable grounds for sexual assaults occurring, thus misrepresenting the conclusions of the report to undermine its credibility.

Section 2.2: Misrepresentation of Other Users’ Statements

• Interaction with @mozz:
  • Claim by Linkerbaan: "You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question."
  • Misrepresentation: This statement misrepresents @mozz's engagement, as @mozz provided detailed responses and posed specific questions that Linkerbaan did not address substantively.

Chapter 3: Positive Engagement

Section 3.1: Points of Constructive Dialogue

• Acknowledgment of Counterpoints:
  • On a few occasions, Linkerbaan acknowledged the need for a thorough investigation and expressed concerns about the suppression of evidence, which can be seen as a constructive element in their engagement.

(To be continued, 1/2)

Hamas has exactly the same conflict of interest as Likud: Keeping the war going and creating suffering for "their" side helps drive support from their fellow countrymen who by and large don't like them otherwise, and kind of want to get rid of them.

I won't say that there's a direct similarity but they both have reasons to reject peace proposals and keep the slaughter going, to the detriment of "their side."