The <insert forum name here> majority rules/mob mentality technique
Tis a common theme I have noticed in many internet forums.
Example:
poster1: I have given you much proof, from varied sources which include but are not limited to encyclopedias, dictionaries, respected individuals of the field, etc - etc - etc
poster2: So what? Everyone here knows your wrong!! teh argument your presenting is <insert expletive here>!!
poster3: Ha Ha..keep on providing us with those dictionary and encyclopedia definitions poster1, and then perhaps you should look up the word "credibility" in the dictionary, seeing as how that's the only word you seem to have difficulty understanding.
poster4: of coarse poster3 thats assumming any one seriously considered poster1 had credibility to begin with..right ?
This is usually followed some other witty retorts by others in the mob, which have little or nothing to do with the initial topic being presented, in an effort to detract from the fact that a pertinent argument has been utterly defeated. Of "coarse" there are none in this forum like those who I have caricatured above -- or are there?
So what do ye all think of those lemons?
is it whob or one of the trolls from that sad wanker forum? 😂
leads me to the next idiotic tactic:
"crying 'group think' "
whenever you find yourself in the unfortunate disposition of having multiple people call you out on something baseless and ridiculous which you for whatever reason decided to post, rather than look over the opposing evidence and attempt to refute it, just run away and cry "group think!". after all, by accusing everyone of ganging up on you, you automatically win. sure you would have a purpose in a debate by rendering an opposing point moot or simply not entirely accurate...but that takes effort, reading, deductive reasoning, and a willingness to do more than just cram your opinion down the throats of others (see parroting).
btw, i love the hypothetical situation which never happened. you know, the " I have given you much proof, from varied sources which include but are not limited to encyclopedias, dictionaries, respected individuals of the field, etc - etc - etc". more like "here is my proof of why a fetus is a baby, direct from the anti-abortion agenda site i frequent", or "here is proof that blacks and gays are subhuman animals, direct from stormfront.org"
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The <insert forum name here> majority rules/mob mentality techniqueTis a common theme I have noticed in many internet forums.
Example:
poster1: I have given you much proof, from varied sources which include but are not limited to encyclopedias, dictionaries, respected individuals of the field, etc - etc - etc
poster2: So what? Everyone here knows your wrong!! teh argument your presenting is <insert expletive here>!!
poster3: Ha Ha..keep on providing us with those dictionary and encyclopedia definitions poster1, and then perhaps you should look up the word "credibility" in the dictionary, seeing as how that's the only word you seem to have difficulty understanding.
poster4: of coarse poster3 thats assumming any one seriously considered poster1 had credibility to begin with..right ?
This is usually followed some other witty retorts by others in the mob, which have little or nothing to do with the initial topic being presented, in an effort to detract from the fact that a pertinent argument has been utterly defeated. Of "coarse" there are none in this forum like those who I have caricatured above -- or are there?
So what do ye all think of those lemons?
*what PVS said. He's so hot right now.*
Originally posted by PVS
agenda-site link spamming.you know, someone posts their "proof" on an unproven/dead issue by posting a link to some agenda-based site. you point it out and after much denial, they decide to spam you to death with other links to affiliated agenda-based sites. i will call this the "shock and awe link technique".
ONE person truly comes to mind with that. NO NAMES. Everyone knows who I'm talking about here.
changing pure fiction to valid theory to fact. (similar to the fact/theory switch, only more drawn out and systematic via parroting)
this one's been driving me nuts. ill just illustrate the scenario:
member debates one theory against another, and introduces useless information that they call 'evidence'. maybe its anecdotal evidence, maybe a link to some agenda funded site, maybe its just a complete fabrication which they pulled out of their ass at that moment....whatever the case their 'evidence' is baseless at best.
thats it? no... thats just the beginning. so, every page or so they will bring this 'evidence' up, often accompanied by the words "as i said...", or "as the evidence says..." or anything which implies that we should all know its valid evidence.
but wait...there's more....then the member will shift that evidence into fact. how? that "as i said" becomes "as we know".
its a multilayered process of bullshit which i see carried out alot as of recent. almost seems planned out over several pages