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
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.
a) if I flooded with something, then how could you sense nothing (nonsense)? Why is it so easy for you to dismiss perceivable by suggesting "nonsense"? Who would get a kick out of suggesting "Nothing and Sensing" together as a rhetorical contradiction to tempt those who consent to use it into making fools out of themselves?
b) 12000 word limit, and I'm one of the few who hits that continuously without copy + paste. Yet somehow those who dismiss everything perceivable as nothing sensed (nonsense) find it difficult to follow...
0100100101110011 01110100011010000110100101110011 0111000001110010011011110110111101100110 01110100011010000110000101110100 01001001 0110000101101101?
a) as choice I cannot act; only react to be enacted upon. If you suggest an action; then I can question what it reacted to.
b) how is it that I adapt to multiple words within the OP without confirming to you my stance (want or not want) towards the suggested narrative (kotaku community journalism)? What if I comprehend that agreement vs disagreement about suggested narratives represents miscommunication? How would you reach those who want you to chose a side within conflicts that only exist within their minds?
c) tangible matter aka form perceivable by touch...are you blind while using braille? Is there a digital to braille translator? If so...would they translate a poop emoji?
If choice represents the center of balance, then what could trouble choice but ignorance of perceived balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want)?
Nice catch. I slipped in a suggestion; instead of using implication (if/then). As for your response...as the one perceiving within everything perceivable; what does "nothing" (no) represent?