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
Your words add no value.
a) that implies you consenting to suggested choices as value; while using your own choice to evaluate my choice as of no value.
b) can you have a choice of evaluation without being at the center of balance, and wouldn't that imply balance to be the value for the responding choice of evaluation?
c) "add no(thing)"...how could one perceive nothing and what could one add to everything perceivable?
d) "your words"...are suggested words mine or do I choose to shape them out of perceivable sound? Could words be owned when they represent a reaction to sound?
I'm sorry. I have been too polite with you. Allow me to correct that.
You're a disingenuous shit packed grifter that needs to be banned.
So for you "free-will-of-choice" asking questions in response to "Questionable" represents "unfair; not open"? Hilarious. You don't see any contradiction in your suggestion?
I still haven't quite figured out the feces obsession. Could be a simple response of insolence towards ignorance; but keep using feces and the whole sodomy angle is just too specific for insults.
GRIFTER - "confidence trickster"...confidence (trust; belief) represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; which ignores perceived balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law. Is me questioning this really a trick or do you feel it as threatening to your belief based foundation of confidence; hence trying to "ban" free-will-of-choice from questioning the foundation of everything perceivable; while resisting the suggestions of others?
What's the difference of you suggesting the "need" to ban others and the alleged crucifixion of heretics; the burning of witches; the slaying of infidels; the persecution of the intellectuals; the threats of force wielded against denial of suggested beliefs and so on?
What if one doesn't need confidence; but represents response-ability aka choice at the center of all perceivable existence? That doesn't require trust or belief; it requires the growth of comprehension; which others cannot suggest you.
Why choose between being polite (want) or impolite (not want) to whoever wrote the text one consented to read on a screen; instead of using the text as inspiration for whatever one chooses to shape out of it? Question the weakness of being tempted into conflicts by consenting to text, and then question why the parasitic few control the distribution of suggested information world wide?