Also possible legitimate disagreement. People you know can have different earnestly held opinions. And believe something you think is just a narrative is legitimate fact.
Not saying your wrong of course. But there also seems to be a pattern of labeling disagreement as shills. I’d hazard a guess there probably are shills at work. Probably far less then most here want to believe though.
The truther communities trend towards viciously opinionated people. Some of whom make no effort to conceal the idea that they think themselves the smartest people in the room and that everyone else is a sheeple whose fallen for one pysop or another.
GAW only real uniting factors. Is people believe there’s stuff we aren’t being told. And that this Q fella/Trump maybe onto something.
Aside from that People’s opinions here differ wildly and strongly. We’re also online. Which adds a factor of anonymity. Because of that anonymity some people feel there’s no real reason to be civil in their disagreement because it’s not like the person they’re berating for their opinion can actually reach out and deck them for being rude or a dick.
Thanks for your comment. How would explain that a popular highly upvoted post has a disproportionate ratio of comments against it and/or it’s author to comments in favor of it?
Because the people against it felt the need to comment and explain why they didn’t like it or disagreed with the author.
While the people in favor can upvote and move on. Upvote signals they agree. But perhaps they don’t particularly find the topic necessary or worth it to comment. They agree. What does commenting any of the variations of Agreement really add?
One should also factor in the content of the post. If the content is say critical of a certain person in the truther community or maybe broaches a topic that maybe considered extremely divisive with people holding absolutely strongly held unchanging opinions. Ex, Aliens/Space, Flat Earth, Aliens are demons. Or for a more recent GAW example the recent posts around the KJV Bible and possible problems/controversy associated with it.
Some people don’t particularly feel like getting involved in an ultimately pointless debate that ultimately will do nothing but piss people off. IE (Flynn v Wood). Fans of Flynn say Wood has gone off the Deep End. Fans of Wood say Flynn was a traitor all along.
Someone believing/self assured in their own intelligence/opinion may feel far more inclined to “Educate the masses” if you will on why whatever opinion posted is wrong. Versus someone either already in agreement with the post. Or perhaps of a more moderate stance.
A portion of GAWs users are also self admitted trolls elsewhere online. Why wouldn’t they try trolling here as well?
Just a series of thoughts probably not ordered or phrased particularly well. But then again writing out my thoughts has never been a strong suit. Sometimes I nail it other times it’s more drawn out rambling.
Appreciate your opinion on this. I find it interesting that the vast majority of “rebuttals” against popular posts do not actually address nor contend against the substance of the post, but seem to merely consist of straw mans, anecdotes, deflections, etc. I find that to be rather interesting.
Thanks for you opinion on this matter. I’ve noticed that most rebuttals against highly upvoted posts aren’t actual rebuttals. Just a lot of straw mans, anecdotes, pseudo-rebuttals, etc.
Yep
Also possible legitimate disagreement. People you know can have different earnestly held opinions. And believe something you think is just a narrative is legitimate fact.
Not saying your wrong of course. But there also seems to be a pattern of labeling disagreement as shills. I’d hazard a guess there probably are shills at work. Probably far less then most here want to believe though.
The truther communities trend towards viciously opinionated people. Some of whom make no effort to conceal the idea that they think themselves the smartest people in the room and that everyone else is a sheeple whose fallen for one pysop or another.
GAW only real uniting factors. Is people believe there’s stuff we aren’t being told. And that this Q fella/Trump maybe onto something.
Aside from that People’s opinions here differ wildly and strongly. We’re also online. Which adds a factor of anonymity. Because of that anonymity some people feel there’s no real reason to be civil in their disagreement because it’s not like the person they’re berating for their opinion can actually reach out and deck them for being rude or a dick.
Thanks for your comment. How would explain that a popular highly upvoted post has a disproportionate ratio of comments against it and/or it’s author to comments in favor of it?
Because the people against it felt the need to comment and explain why they didn’t like it or disagreed with the author.
While the people in favor can upvote and move on. Upvote signals they agree. But perhaps they don’t particularly find the topic necessary or worth it to comment. They agree. What does commenting any of the variations of Agreement really add?
One should also factor in the content of the post. If the content is say critical of a certain person in the truther community or maybe broaches a topic that maybe considered extremely divisive with people holding absolutely strongly held unchanging opinions. Ex, Aliens/Space, Flat Earth, Aliens are demons. Or for a more recent GAW example the recent posts around the KJV Bible and possible problems/controversy associated with it.
Some people don’t particularly feel like getting involved in an ultimately pointless debate that ultimately will do nothing but piss people off. IE (Flynn v Wood). Fans of Flynn say Wood has gone off the Deep End. Fans of Wood say Flynn was a traitor all along.
Someone believing/self assured in their own intelligence/opinion may feel far more inclined to “Educate the masses” if you will on why whatever opinion posted is wrong. Versus someone either already in agreement with the post. Or perhaps of a more moderate stance.
A portion of GAWs users are also self admitted trolls elsewhere online. Why wouldn’t they try trolling here as well?
Just a series of thoughts probably not ordered or phrased particularly well. But then again writing out my thoughts has never been a strong suit. Sometimes I nail it other times it’s more drawn out rambling.
Anywho. Just my 2 cents on the question.
Appreciate your opinion on this. I find it interesting that the vast majority of “rebuttals” against popular posts do not actually address nor contend against the substance of the post, but seem to merely consist of straw mans, anecdotes, deflections, etc. I find that to be rather interesting.
Thanks for you opinion on this matter. I’ve noticed that most rebuttals against highly upvoted posts aren’t actual rebuttals. Just a lot of straw mans, anecdotes, pseudo-rebuttals, etc.