It's certainly an appealing message, and this guy seems like a totally decent guy, but long term, over generations...it just doesn't work.

There are several reasons why, but think of it in terms of Game Theory:

Everyone does better in a truly Cooperate/Cooperate world where everyone is totally colorblind, universalist, and abandons in group preference.

But any group that chooses the 'cheat' option will come out even more ahead, because they can then parasite off the 'cooperate' parties. For instance, in a system where most people make political decisions based on thought and contemplation, a group that pursues pure in group preference and solidarity can gain power far, far beyond its numbers. Similar in economics - a group that prefers its own will eventually do vastly better than members of groups that are universalist.

Eventually, the political/social/economic incentives to do so will be too much, and one party will choose to 'cheat.'

And then others will see it, and they will be forced to choose the 'cheat' option as well. And then your multicultural utopian becomes either a low-trust dystopia in the best case, or a civil war in the worst case.

This is, in short, why the idealistic Ron Paul libertarianism of the early 2000s gave way to the modern ethnonationalist bent. Because during the Obama years so many idealistic, race blind libertarians saw other groups openly 'cheating' and not wanting to compete fairly in this race blind, idealistic playing field.

There are other reasons, but this is a key one why ethno-nationalism for everyone is a better solution for everyone long term; it removes this enticing and dangerous 'we cheat while they cooperate' incentive.

Well, your question speaks to how do we know what is true if everything starts to look like a conspiracy.

I don't have an answer. But here is my approach:

1) The starting point of all assumptions is always build / never destroy. We always wish to create a better world for everyone.

2) But, good intentions are just that. Humans are a social species, and in our species all members lie. So how do you scope for that?

3) I'm not entirely sure. I am thinking something along these lines:

a) Level 1: Accept all claims at surface value. Give everyone an opportunity to be right and an opportunity to be wrong. Don't be too harsh at this level.

b) Level 2: Be skeptical of everything. The base assumption is that all humans lie all the time because we are social animals and are forced to.

One technique that I think might be useful is to allow your self to keep a whole bunch of self contradictory opinions about whether or not someone is telling the truth open in your head. Kind of like a point cloud of possibility and only collapse that cloud of possible right/wrong estimates when you see a reason to do so.

This point cloud of possible value judgements should change shape and size as one gets more skilled at understanding human psychology and behaviour. So, for example, when learn about the concept of framing, you can start to imagine a whole set of possible frames as ways to pass a value judgement.

I kind of thing this is what most of us do anyway, and it's why it is difficult to nail people down to an opinion especially on things they don't have expertice in.

4) So, can we evaluate their statement according to these rules in a reasonable way?

Let's try:

a) Assume the base assumption - they have no ulterior motive, they are telling the truth. Yeah, it's a great point absolutely, if youre belief system says something like we are all equal we are all the same we are all one species. Outside of that ... ?

b) Be skeptical of everything - the problem is that the system of controls in place are not just physical and procedural, the more you see of the matrix the more you see that the controls in the system are psychological as well.

The system does not fear us at all. With the invention of data mining and huge computing power, they system has all the tools necessary to identify us and start to evaluate us. Combine that with behavioural psychologists being hired by governments and big business, evolutionary biologists and all the other specialties, they have a ton of tools to study us and calculate probability of issue. In fact, probably everyone on this site has the skills already to know when they are talking to an NPC. Probably everyone here can tell what media a person consumes merely by the opinion those people share with you in conversation. So, the psychological controls are deep.

So, the problem is that .win and a few other places have caught really crude posts with calls to action. First, no one does a call to action. I have never seen this anywhere. You can just smell a call to action a mile away because I have never seen anyone desire to harm anyone else on any locaiton that I am in. Second, some of these posts had really really weird syntax and sentence construction. It was crude in a way that a police office working on an anti-hate unit might use because they typically deal with people with low education, low training and low cognitive abilities so they mimic that because that is what they are trained to do. If you watch the overreaction for the Jan 6th people that made a tiny mistake, you know those teams are trying to see if they can get people to do something, but the audiences on the internet are a tiny bit more sophisticated so they aren't getting any bites.

Because this doesn't seem to be working for them because all of the people on these forums are just nice beautiful people trying to figure out how to survive and build a better future, I think someone might be doing a little bit more sophisticated work.

A couple of people have accidentally bumped into troll accounts that are typically brand new, use language and imagery in ways that we don't use them and are posting a few things that just make you go hmmmm. The best way for them to learn about us is to create a bunch of accounts and do a/b testing to see how we react to learn our language, imagery, culture and our weaknesses.

So, probably it's just a bunch of Vaush / breadtube kinds of people creating accounts and just trolling. Buuuuuut, the directionality starts to show it self when you start to see new accounts posting more sophisticated posts (and even responses) that kind of don't make sense if you haven't been around for long enough.

So, the problem is, am I paranoid? Sure. Am I wrong, almost certainly. Does the trust at face value / verify approach help? I think it does because it allows us to treat everyone with respect but keep our eyes open and keep on learning.

The goal is always to build, build for better, build a better future for everyone and learning how the system controls us through our psychology is probably a really important piece.