What bothers me when this topic comes up sometimes is the double standards some people use.

Some people bend over backward to exclude any possibility of any of this being done for any other reason than the public welfare. Even in that best case where we're dealing with the noblest of intentions every step of the chain of command / decision-making about policy there's still the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" problem where ideas can arise from good intentions while at the same time being deeply misguided and counterproductive to stated goals.

Then anyone criticizing the slide into dystopian pseudo-technocratic tyranny (e.g. Alex Jones) or offering some resistance is often assumed to have malicious or cynically self-interested ulterior motives or dismissed as a dumb person / "deplorable" in need of re-education.

Somewhat related in that double standards are also in prominent display there: talk about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I see many people apply double standards there.

Anything the "western" "leaders" say when it's about noble intentions they take at face value (even when it's in contradiciton with what they've said at another time) while anything Russian leaders say that may sound reasonable must be pretext and lies.

False flags are a possibility when Russia or some other opponent did it but never when it's "our" "leaders".

When one sees this kind of double-standarding one know one isn't dealing with a rational discussion partner but instead with some kind of cultist or weird religious dogmatist.