Search Results
7/25/2025, 1:45:31 PM
>>7663354
>You outline strawmen of what you believe is an overzealous moral crusader arguing and then make an outrageous claim
If they don't do that, they have no ground to stand on, no target to attempt to shame and are forced to argue on logic and objectivity which would let them them agree with their enemy, instead of demonizing their opposition by virtue of being against the thing they are defending by portraying the opposing speaker as irrational and hating them for no reason, thus making themselves the victim in the scenario, which makes them believe they are magically correct by virtue of being attacked, in the end behaving exactly like they claim their opposition to be but insisting that they "won" by virtue of pointing the finger at their opposition first.
You see this behavior in political propaganda and activism and amongst high school children and college students.
Ultimately this only radicalized rational people against them.
But the big epic twist is that he was "just pretending to be retarded" to "make people mad" and anyone who replied or doesn't take them seriously is mad and seething, "because they just are ok"?
I find this type of less than shitposting loop rather mind numbing, it makes you question if they actually are dead serious, especially since this isn't even original and you can go anywhere on the internet and spark these discussions and you will have the same canned replies every time that you might as well just be talking to the same person every single time.
The big question is; why do they bother? Because blue checkmarks on twitter farm replies and bait their responses for revenue?
If i made money by getting baited by these bots, i would also pretend to be mad and easily emotionally affected so they would keep engaging me.
But on here? There is no point in calling someone mad, because it genuinely makes you seem you are the one who is mad the more you keep insisting on trying to appoint an emotional state to someone.
>You outline strawmen of what you believe is an overzealous moral crusader arguing and then make an outrageous claim
If they don't do that, they have no ground to stand on, no target to attempt to shame and are forced to argue on logic and objectivity which would let them them agree with their enemy, instead of demonizing their opposition by virtue of being against the thing they are defending by portraying the opposing speaker as irrational and hating them for no reason, thus making themselves the victim in the scenario, which makes them believe they are magically correct by virtue of being attacked, in the end behaving exactly like they claim their opposition to be but insisting that they "won" by virtue of pointing the finger at their opposition first.
You see this behavior in political propaganda and activism and amongst high school children and college students.
Ultimately this only radicalized rational people against them.
But the big epic twist is that he was "just pretending to be retarded" to "make people mad" and anyone who replied or doesn't take them seriously is mad and seething, "because they just are ok"?
I find this type of less than shitposting loop rather mind numbing, it makes you question if they actually are dead serious, especially since this isn't even original and you can go anywhere on the internet and spark these discussions and you will have the same canned replies every time that you might as well just be talking to the same person every single time.
The big question is; why do they bother? Because blue checkmarks on twitter farm replies and bait their responses for revenue?
If i made money by getting baited by these bots, i would also pretend to be mad and easily emotionally affected so they would keep engaging me.
But on here? There is no point in calling someone mad, because it genuinely makes you seem you are the one who is mad the more you keep insisting on trying to appoint an emotional state to someone.
Page 1