On top of that, hypersensitivity, projection, victim-role adoption, blame pre-loading.
While these are effective rhetorical tools for manipulating people, this isn’t how reasonable people engage in conversation.
If you’re not a bot then you’re a narcissist or have picked up narcissistic behaviors from reading social media arguments and should, as the kids say, touch grass.
In fairness I can’t tell now. Good point. I would also dig at people not voting in protest and then complaining about trump being in power, but that is a straw man in isolation and I’ve not specifically come across someone with that opinion
Yes, exactly. They use a lot of bad faith arguments, logical fallacies, etc. They’re all just literary devices to amp up the messaging and they all follow roughly the same kind of bad faith argument templates.
Of course, these could be people. The problem is that they seem to simultaneously be completely ignorant of how reality works while also being an encyclopedia of pop culture political references and grievances. If it’s a person then it fits the ‘chronically online, touch grass please’ stereotype, but there are so many others that argue exactly how it does on the exact same topics across all of social media so I just assume it is a bot or a bot-affected person.
We know there are information operations that exist to shape public perception that are happening on all social media. This is what it looks like, very hard to tell apart from real people (made even harder by real people mimicking them).
Who is “you” in the phrase “you’d still have one”. Pretty obvious the person you’re arguing with isn’t a trump voter
But the one you just replied to sure sounds like they voted for Trump by proxy.
Alarmist at best, malicious at worst I think
Is that really obvious though? It reads like a troll trying to create pointless division among progressives.
I always read these people as either political bots or children (or adults, similarly intelligent) spreading a meme created by a political bot.
Me: Vote.
You: Stop creating division!
Unreal.
Textbook DARVO sequencing.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO)
On top of that, hypersensitivity, projection, victim-role adoption, blame pre-loading.
While these are effective rhetorical tools for manipulating people, this isn’t how reasonable people engage in conversation.
If you’re not a bot then you’re a narcissist or have picked up narcissistic behaviors from reading social media arguments and should, as the kids say, touch grass.
Take some introspection time.
Still deflecting. The one-liner gaslight doesn’t erase the DARVO playbook you just ran. Anyone scrolling can see it; my work here is done.
In fairness I can’t tell now. Good point. I would also dig at people not voting in protest and then complaining about trump being in power, but that is a straw man in isolation and I’ve not specifically come across someone with that opinion
Yes, exactly. They use a lot of bad faith arguments, logical fallacies, etc. They’re all just literary devices to amp up the messaging and they all follow roughly the same kind of bad faith argument templates.
Of course, these could be people. The problem is that they seem to simultaneously be completely ignorant of how reality works while also being an encyclopedia of pop culture political references and grievances. If it’s a person then it fits the ‘chronically online, touch grass please’ stereotype, but there are so many others that argue exactly how it does on the exact same topics across all of social media so I just assume it is a bot or a bot-affected person.
We know there are information operations that exist to shape public perception that are happening on all social media. This is what it looks like, very hard to tell apart from real people (made even harder by real people mimicking them).
deleted by creator