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?
I would change @brazenautomaton subject from Commies to the broader Authoritarian fuckwits
this is a specific way they behave
greentext is functionally identical but Communists don’t use it, they behave in a specific goon way
I think it’s the layer of direct offense in greentext. If I’m
> implying you make any fucking sense
I’m clearly talking to you, in order to insult you.
Obviously that’s not nice, but it has a… I want to say “refreshing honesty” but that’s actually a complete lie.
But you don’t show your greentext to all your friends, and the person you’re greentexting at doesn’t have a name, it’s an anonymous person.
the anons can’t pull the goon trick, precisely because they’re anons
an anon greentexting only gets believed if the (implied) argument is actually compelling
a goon can just surf on social power, people believing them because they’re someone who is believed
That’s probably it actually.
You can quote somebody, write “> implying” beneath it and have a solid post, but the thing you’re quoting has to be kind of “”“objectively”“” silly because nobody can tell whether I’m a cool guy you should agree with when I’m posting on 4chan – unless I use a name, in which case I am definitionally the least cool guy in the thread.