bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,099
- 5,400
What you're describing has nothing to do with what is happening, which is that when Benning makes a move, rather than examine it rationally, many posters start from an assumption it must be bad, and then work backwards from there to figure out why it must be bad. Your hypothetical x, y and z arguments usually arise from this, and anyone who wades in to say so just gets the goalposts moved on them over and over again until they give up. In many cases, "You hate everything Benning does!" isn't ad hominem. It succinctly and accurately describes the behaviour and perspective of a given poster.The most frustrating part of trying to post here is this persistent volley:
Alice: I dislike this transaction for reasons X, Y, and Z
Bob: You hate everything Benning does.
Alice: Not true, and, also, not relevant. I have given the reasons: X, Y, and Z. Do you disagree with these reasons?
Bob: The negativity here is so frustrating! There is no reason to dislike this transaction! You just blindly hate Benning!
Alice: I have given reasons. They are X, Y, and Z. do you have anything to say about X, Y, or Z?
Bob: The negativity is so toxic! Why can't we all just be positive about the Canucks!!
Alice: I am begging you to please address my argument. They are, again, X, Y, and Z.
Bob: BLIND hATE ToxiC NeGaTIVitY
There is just zero opportunity for actual discussion when this is the perpetual modus operandi.
Last edited: