Slop.

The Borg style of losing individuality seems a somewhat reasonable fear to me because the Borg were (almost) truly of a singular mind that completely override the individual & effectively turned them into an expendable robot. There's a huge difference between that and just having a common goal of the well-being and progress of all community members.

The argument isn't that the Borg are actually good and how dare the authors represent the Borg as bad, it's that this is a work of art that doesn't just exist in the framework of its own "lore" but also the real world and real people that it was being published for, and was written by people who had ideologies and opinions relating to the real world, and the Borg were written to convey a reactionary anti-"collectivism" message. The in-universe meaning is inconsequential, the issue is the allegorical element.

Like, do you know Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"? It's the one where beautiful people are made to wear masks, the strong are made to wear weights, the intelligent are forced to wear headsets that continuously distract them. TV reporters all deliberately speak with a speech impediment so that they don't speak more fluidly than someone with a speech impediment, etc.

That's obviously a bad way to run society and no one is defending that shit except maybe Pol Pot. When I say that I view that story as reactionary, I don't mean that the story's society is actually great, but that it's meant to mock the idea of egalitarianism by treating the above as the logical consequence of it, which is obviously false but you have a century of anticommunist philistines nodding their heads and going "so true".