Doesn't it make a lot of sense when you consider Kotaku and Buzzfeed post intentional rage inducing click bait for attention in a failing market space. If you want to get the most rage clicks you need a network to spread your articles and create a fake grass roots movement to do it. Wouldn't places like KIA or /v/ be the perfect place to post your fake cup head tutorial video or 'why killing white babies is okay' articles? Doesn't matter if you believe what the content is saying, it just matters you get eyes on it. So for failed journalists becoming moderators (I'm not pointing any fingers here so we're clear) or admins of communities designed to repost your low quality bait makes sense. Same way any time you look into grass roots activism it's always funded by large corps or political agencies. It's never actual grass root responses to things.
Communities like Kotaku in action are run by failed journalists hyping their own click bait articles
In your casual dismissal of one single premise that was never stated, you leave a stack of lies on the table to be taken in without review.
Baseless assertions, logical fallacies, loaded Questions. If OP has a point to make he has yet to do so. Though at base, this thread seems no more than a platform to assert and project talking points into the community. To control the direction of this forum, and to frame it in a specific language. Which will only weaken it as a community.
a) if you write "journalist"; then the "ist" implies the suggested journalism to be a journalist within. All your reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false etc.) afterwards are within the boundaries of you consenting to a suggestion of others, and only those others have the power to define; redefine and contradict the definition of suggested journalism...not you who already consented to it.
b) if the perceiving dismisses the perceivable, then that represents ignorance. On the other hand...if the perceiving resists the suggested; then he respond to the premise aka that (perception) which was send before (suggestion).
The premise of suggested lies represents suggested truth, and you choosing any side represents your consent to want (truth) or not want (lies) the suggested information by others; which is what puts you into the conflict of reason (true versus lies).
Your consent to suggested truth is what tempts others to utilize suggested lies against you. The "table" I adapt to represents perceivable inspiration; not suggested information; hence RE (response to) VIEW (perceivable through senses).
a) does balance represents the base of choice? Can one have choice without being within balance?
b) ASSERT(to set form) -TION (thorough action)...choice represents being the formed reaction.
LOG'IC, noun [Latin; Greek] - "reason". Reason represents the want versus not want conflict; caused by ignoring need (perception) for want (suggestion). You are tricked to misuse choice within a suggested imbalance (want vs not want aka true vs false); while ignoring to utilize choice as the response within perceived balance (need/want)....need sustains life; want tempts towards death.
The age of reason is suggested to you by the parasitic few; who use suggestion (-isms) to cause division (reason) among the consenting many.
a) LOADED - "charged"...what if adaptation to perceivable charges comprehension; while consent to suggestions discharges comprehension? Have you noticed the parasitic few suggesting things; that when consented to makes the many less perceptible to their surroundings?
b) do you view a quest as wanting to reach a suggested goal? Have you considered that life is about resisting being moved towards a predefined outcome (death). What if the few tempt the many to seek quests; while I direct questions at the ignored origin aka as choice questioning the balance required to be a choice?
c) why aren't you trying to disarm the questions with your "logic" instead trying to red-flag the user of the weapon of "choice"?
Why wait for a suggested point; when one can adapt to any perceived expression?
Are you in control of direction as life being moved from inception towards death or are you reacting to being controlled?
I like that...what if suggested words (if consented to) frame comprehension of perceivable sound into a box (ego based memory)?
SPECIFIA (notation of limits) -TION (through action); hence flow causing momentum (balance) for the reacting (choice) form within. Does balance represent the limit for choice?
COMMUNITY, noun - "properly, common possession"
a) what does temporary life within ongoing motion from inception towards death possess?
b) who claims property over and possess the world wide web...the few who suggest it or the many who consent to use it?
You 4re very good 4t destroying conversa̷ ̵tions threɐds,a̶͛ͩ͌̔̋̂̾̽ͥ̊͌̑ͫn̢̨d͛͂ͧ͑ ̨ͮͮ̚n͂̇̏̄͐̀̍̓͌ͬ̚oͭ̀t̷̸͜ḩ̒ͯ̿̿̋ͫ̐̈̐̾ͩ͑́́in͂̈́ͮͯͪ̓ͪͨ͂g̸ ̃̓̍ͣ̈͌̌̈́͐̍ͬͫȅ̵̶ͣ̅̃ͯͫ̔̑ͤ́̂͢mloś̨͝re̷̵͛̊͑ͮ̓ͪͤ̃ͨͮͬ̍̀e.̓͗ͧ̿̊ͨ̂͏̕ ̕͢͞
a) someone suggested a thread and I adapted to what inspires me as a comment. How does that destroy what others have conversations about?
b) emlosree? Is this your attempt to slap the bot label on me as grounds for a ban? Is this suppose to be an anagram for "else more"?
c) how about inviting me to a topic of yours that you feel comfortable in? Anything that you allow to actually be "questionable"?
d) look at the conversations all over the internet...endless regurgitation within the conflict of reason; while the mainstream media openly contradicts whatever the viewers are reasoning about. Why do you think do I get attacked for standing out of both camps (the few suggesting and the many consenting)? Could it be that me questioning perceived over suggested; is viewed as hostile by both those making suggestions and those reasoning about suggestions?
You've flooded the whole page with nonsense, rendering it difficult to read or follow.
Very good, you have proven you are not a base algorithm. But your presence here, only acts to derail threads without addressing them in any tangible manner. And this reply only brings up more troubling Questions.
No.