It’s wild to me that you genuinely think everyone who disagrees with you is either a “bot, paid propagandist, or Nazi”. Are there some of those amongst people who disagree with you? Probably. But to think it’s “nearly all” means you are oblivious. The spectrum of human belief is wide, and people on the opposite side of the spectrum are still people. To call them a bot or paid propagandist is dehumanizing (“no real human could hold such an opinion”). To call them a Nazi is (unless you can show that they likely are) just an attempt to shut the conversation down as well. You act like you’re trying to help foster good conversation, that you’re here to help correct misinformation or the like; but the fact that your first instinct is to just dismiss the humanity of someone who disagrees with you, and shut down the conversation by any means rather than actually having a discussion, contradicts your stated intent.
Hold a conversation, which is a back-and-forth, where neither person should assume bad of the other person; you should both assume you are there to participate in good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. This assumption of bad-faith helps no-one, especially not the people you think you’re helping; they see someone getting “shut-down”, not “disproven”.
It’s wild to me that you genuinely think everyone who disagrees with you is either a “bot, paid propagandist, or Nazi”. Are there some of those amongst people who disagree with you? Probably. But to think it’s “nearly all” means you are oblivious. The spectrum of human belief is wide, and people on the opposite side of the spectrum are still people. To call them a bot or paid propagandist is dehumanizing (“no real human could hold such an opinion”). To call them a Nazi is (unless you can show that they likely are) just an attempt to shut the conversation down as well. You act like you’re trying to help foster good conversation, that you’re here to help correct misinformation or the like; but the fact that your first instinct is to just dismiss the humanity of someone who disagrees with you, and shut down the conversation by any means rather than actually having a discussion, contradicts your stated intent.
Hold a conversation, which is a back-and-forth, where neither person should assume bad of the other person; you should both assume you are there to participate in good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. This assumption of bad-faith helps no-one, especially not the people you think you’re helping; they see someone getting “shut-down”, not “disproven”.