I kinda feel bad for people like that AOC stan. They are genuinely close to the right answers, but can't overcome the mountains of propaganda. It's not an easy thing to do and almost all of us were once in a similar position. Very few people in capitalist countries become communists, even fewer get there without being a turbo lib or some kind of libertarian first.
I replied in that chain somewhere to let that person know they'd be a communist in 5 years or they're gonna be a fascist. They'll go down the anti communist rabbit hole or they'll read an actual book written by a communist. Part of me thinks we should stop doing this sort of thing completely and focus entirely on good faith engagement with anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton and just ban everyone else. Should we be encouraging outright bullying of someone who genuinely seems to be an anticapitalist? Probably not. Not even just because of the danger to neurodiverse people, but also it seems like a bad strategy to dogpile.
Idk as a communist or even just a leftist in general it seems like I'm obligated to help people get a better understanding of...reality? At least the realities of capitalism, imperialism, propaganda, etc. I don't really care if someone wants to be a communist or not as long as we can agree on reality. What is CIA propaganda? What is just something I've heard all my life for no reason other than to make me hate communism? Etc. Anyway, what I mean is that I think we should be more focused on getting people to agree that capitalism is bad and communism is good than we should on just being mean to random libs and baby anarchists or whatever the hell that AOC stan is
Sorry, I feel like I'm really off topic. I'm just going to post this because I'll delete it if I think too much longer
Seems like it would be way more useful and accurate to just have a bunch of participants interact with a blog or something as a "focus group" and have trigger warnings that let them skip an article if they want to. Ask them to view a certain number and explain skipping is fine. Then after, ask some questions about their triggers and see what lines up. Did people who report certain triggers skip those articles? Seems like an easy way to set this study up and actually test if trigger warnings are useful. Would be even better if you could include people in the study who have documented triggers, but that's a lot harder to manage