By their behavior, you fucking twit.
Do they engage with criticism that is “critical of capitalism” that always seems to be about geek media and how people who engage with geek media are contemptible and low-status and have no substance to it other than that? They are almost certainly a smug, status-grubbing Communist who will be heaped with praise and adulation for their brave, daring truth-telling.
Do they also insinuate geeks are sexually unattractive to women and thus sexually threatening to women, even when it has fucking nothing to do with what they are talking about? When someone argues against them, do they just put a quote block around what their opponent said and present it as self-evidently worthy of mockery? If one of those things is true, they are definitely a smug, status-grubbing Communist and they probably post on Something Awful. If both of those things are true, they are a smug, status-grubbing Communist who used to post on Something Awful, but have almost certainly been banned at one time or other for being an asshole to moderators, and took it as proof that people who post on Something Awful are contemptible reactionaries.
You, too, could have the power to notice patterns, if popularity hadn’t stolen your ability to notice anything that isn’t popularity.
Geeks are the most oppressed people in the world, apparently
Communists hallucinate in order to feel contempt. Nothing is new. Only Death can save us.
I swear it’s like the people who argue with @brazenautomaton are in some kind of competition to see who can prove him right in the least amount of words.
Wait hold on this is kinda gonna come off as a “Gotcha!” or something but I’m pretty sure I don’t mean it like that but:
“do they just put a quote block around what their opponent said and present it as self-evidently worthy of mockery?”
Is that… not just exactly identical to >-quoting on 4chan? Or is there some functional difference?
> Implying we don’t rephrase it first
