I'm a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.

I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens' opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I'm neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.

I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it's usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don't listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

It's impossible to systematically lie to an entire country's population about the country itself. It's never happened anywhere on Earth and will never do so with current technology. It is however trivial to lie about other countries, which I like to always keep in mind. Think for a moment what reason a Chinese person would even have to dislike their government, when they are clearly doing a good job and actually solving their problems. Even the victims of Tiananmen weren't those often talked-about "pro-Democracy" students, most were anti-liberalization communist worker protestors.

Absolutely. But I don't want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I'd say I'd like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

It's perfectly nice to say things I believe to be true and learn that they aren't, why wouldn't it be.

Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone's needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don't) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don't trust my own opinions or the authors', all of them are flawed in some way.

Yes, that's it.

That view being wrong, yes.

Could have been it before that comment, but you insisted. We have had a fruitful exchange, I learned something, don't spoil it with meaningless pride. Hope you make lots of new friends here!

Tht wasn't quite nice on your part, but still thank you.

So you think it's morally wrong to be wrong? That's an interesting perspective. It's usually taken for granted that people are free to believe anything (religion, etc.). How would you tackle that if you had a choice?

Your concept of "failure" might not exactly fit everyone else's, but I'm sure you can contribute to the conversation!

Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades... Your implementation at least seems more plausible.

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that's how the justice system works.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those actions by the army. Guess that gives me a different view of the incident...