I do think it's strange that when Israel promotes nationalism in it's clearly more controversial status -- being defamed by all of its neighbors and a large segment of the western left and right -- suddenly this is a bad thing. If we had (serious) pressure to dissolve the U.S., I think we would see a backlash of equal or greater measure. Your use of language here also clearly shows your position: 'army' is a very harsh word to use for some students posting on social media.
Not sure if this is joking or not, but the fact that I can't tell is itself indicative. This is an example of just how toxic state- and corporate-sponsored trolling is to communities. Any given position will promote winners and losers, and any position anyone takes could, in theory, be the result of dishonest, arational, apersonal influencers who lack the desire or drive for a rational civil society. And I think it's even fair to discount all potentially corrupted opinions because of that risk--but the end result is having to give up on the Internet as a forum for discourse, which pretty much kills off its liberatory potential.
We need to find a way around this ASAP, before it gets worse. And it will most certainly get worse.
(This message has been bought and paid for by... well, who knows?)
>This is an example of just how toxic state- and corporate-sponsored trolling is to communities.
Rather, this is an example of how toxic the fear of it is. It's like that episode of the Twilight Zone, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street," where the invaders only have to sow a tiny bit of paranoia and mistrust and watch people teach each other apart. Except in this case, there don't even need to be shills, the result would be the same either way.
Every opinion is potentially corrupted, especially when propaganda exists. The result isn't giving up on the Internet as a forum for discourse, it's giving up on discourse.
I like the results of having a civil society with rational discourse. Not simply that it's the result of the inalienable rights of thought and speech, but because society as a whole has massively benefited from it. The marketplace of ideas bubbles to the top the "best" ideas, but it is almost a requirement that its constituent agents at least recognize the value of reason, even if they themselves are flawed and biased implementations of reason.
It may be the case that it's impossible to save discourse, and the future is a world where brute force, power, and hierarchy drive which ideas dominate society. We'd be lesser for it, though, and I don't think we've explored many ideas for preventing that end result.
I agree that a society with rational discourse is clearly the best option, and that this is an extremely difficult problem, notably because everyone likes to think that they're rational. We're always going to be subject to external inputs that change how we perceive reality and the world around us, and not always in a rational way. Some people recognize the value of reason, and make it their business to exploit it, while others recognize the value of reason but fail to acknowledge that the world they live in affects their views and perception of reality, and a third group recognizes the value of reason but sees their identity as immutable -- this is the most dangerous group, in my opinion, and a group I regret to say I've been a part of.
My point is only that our opinions are swayed and altered by propaganda, media, and the world around us in general. To say an opinion has been 'corrupted' is a murky concept to me, because I'm not sure how much of our opinions I believe are original, and what corruption actually means in this instance.
Israel's recruiting power in Georgia is unrivaled. I know at least twelve other Georgia natives who are part of the shadow cabal, using our WASP heritage as cover!
