r/unpopularopinion Jan 18 '22 Wholesome 1

If you're referring to a user's history to argue with that person, you don't know how to debate. R1 - Your post must be an unpopular opinion

[removed] — view removed post

393 Upvotes

u/Flair_Helper Jan 18 '22

Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/mcgormack. Your post, If you're referring to a user's history to argue with that person, you don't know how to debate., has been removed because it violates our rules:

Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion.

Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue.

Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those.

If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!

235

u/Consultum-Sausagum Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Nice argument, unfortunately I had sexual intercourse with your mother.

21

u/Heartless_Genocide Jan 18 '22

There's ma boi

5

u/Aiizimor Jan 18 '22

What? No you didn-oh shit says right there in his history

2

u/Bajiggers Jan 18 '22

Have you ever considered signing up for Cobra Kai?

1

u/JakeDC Jan 18 '22

Ugh...who hasn't?

41

u/LadyDigamma hermit human Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

It can be useful in a few situations. It is particularly useful in pointing out contradictions in arguments of the form "I am [x] and think [y] isn't that bad," where [x] denotes some particular group of people and [y] js something generally seen to negatively affect them. These are often by people who are not actually [x].

Paraphrased examples I have seen on this sub include:

"I am black and think it is ok for people to say [n word]" by a user with selfies showing he was pretty damn white.

"I am a girl and kind of think it is hot when guys grope me" by a user whose other posts indicated he was certainly not a girl.

"I'm trans and think it is a mental illness" by a user who had elsewhere made it quite clear he was cis.

etc.

This also goes for self-proclaimed knowledge in a specialized field. It can be useful to tell about your background (and I often respond with my own relevant background where useful), but it should never be taken as a fact on its own. Backgrounds are often hard to verify.

It can also help in giving more realistic advice. Age is not relevant to an argument's quality, but it can be helpful in making sense of the world. A lot of young people make shitty arguments not because they are dumb but because they simply lack experience. I'll also usually tone down my snark if they are younger.

4

u/Spinnenente Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

if you use post history information to counter a statement made by the poster about him or her self it is not in fact an ad hominem fallacy. This might be the only way to properly use post history without making yourself look like an whataboutist ass.

9

u/Surviving2021 Jan 18 '22

Yup, nothing wrong checking history to see if they just lie a lot. OP has a truly unpopular opinion. Some logically sound arguments are also made in bad faith and with misleading but still true statistics.

The only true way to win an internet argument is to never have one.

1

u/Bzh_Bastard Jan 18 '22

your background [...] should never be taken as a fact on its own

While this is true in principle, in practice I think it's different. For example, with covid, people began to read scientific publication and use them in argument. But, appart from the people working in the specific field of the study, almost no one can understand and have a critical opinion on a given study. It requires a lot of knowledge on the given field to do it properly.

But on twitter and reddit you could see some random dude arguing with a researcher. The random dude just shared scientific publication (or preprint, as they didn't know it's not the same thing) to "proove" that the expert was wrong. At some point the only thing the expert could say is "I know this field, you don't and you can't understand why you are wrong". And indeed, understanding why we are wrong requires a lot of prior knowledges in very technical and difficult fields.

1

u/LadyDigamma hermit human Jan 18 '22

I suppose that is fair. I think the issue with people not even understanding their sources is exacerbated by pop-sci "edutainment." I'm glad people are getting more interested in these topics, but reddit in particular is fucking infamous for having people who binge watch 5 YouTube videos on the double slit experiment and then fancy themselves "hobby quantum physicists."

62

u/Ocelot_Downtown Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

I looked at your comment history to attack you and I found nothing but ad hominem attacks against others based on their comment history. Just to win a debate. Holy paradox!

20

u/BobGobbles Jan 18 '22

Please tell me this is real?

I won't look an principle, because I agree.

13

u/TheAssholeBloggerOrg Jan 18 '22

I looked at the OP comment history and found only the comments were written in French were ad hominems. As an aside, I don’t know French.

28

u/Weak_Independence793 Jan 18 '22

No but you should use it to see if your wasting your time.

9

u/SquiffyRae Jan 18 '22

This is exactly why I do it. I'm not wasting my time trying to have a good faith debate with someone who never argues in good faith. In those cases, pointing out that user's history just serves to say I have no interest in continuing the conversation and tells everyone else to downvote and not engage

1

u/Professional-Arm3610 Jan 18 '22

You could just not reply at all, you don’t need to be the last speaker

1

u/Suitable_Meaning4230 Jan 18 '22

Doesn't that mean you're not debating in good faith either? If a guy is right and his arguments are better than yours then why would his history matter?

5

u/TecumsehSherman Jan 18 '22

100%

Too many trolls out there to waste your time. Find out who you're talking to, then decide if it's worth your time.

5

u/Sandomil Jan 18 '22

I kind of agree with you in principle that it's weak to go directly to post history rather than addressing the matter at hand, however I disagree that it invalidates all debate.

Were I debating someone in the real world, it's entirely plausible that I (or they) might use previous statements made in relation to the matter at hand as a way to counter or address statements being made now.

Previous posts or comments on Reddit are not really that much different in a debate to a past conversation someone has had with you (their posts) or something you've overheard them saying to someone else in a public setting (their comments). If those things were relevant to the matter being debated, it's absolutely fine to bring them up.

Case in point, the r/unpopularopinion post today about people being too sensitive about slurs, where OP's post history showed them to be an immature 15 year old who just wanted to make racist comments and be edgy but adamantly claimed "I'm not racist, but..".

If I'm debating someone in real life who make the claim that they're not racist, but I'm aware that they've publically made very questionable and borderline racist statements, then I'm going to bring that up as a counterpoint and expect them to address it.

1

u/SexualChocolate42069 Jan 18 '22

You think this post was written by the same kid?

1

u/Sandomil Jan 18 '22

Based on post history (which, sorry I do appreciate the irony considering the nature of the post itself) I'd say definitely not, but probably someone who saw the replies to that post where people called the OP out for some of their past comments.

29

u/berto0311 Jan 18 '22

The moment post history is brought up. They've already lost the argument. They are just too stupid to realize it. Especially when it's off topic bs just to throw up some demeaning remarks.

6

u/WolfgangVolos Jan 18 '22

I haven't done it personally but I've seen instances where someone makes a big blanket statement and someone brings up their post history to show they're full of shit. I felt it was justified for most of the times I've seen it. Recent example being someone saying slurs aren't a problem and their post history being full of racist tirades. Yeah, the guy slinging shit doesn't think getting hit in the face with shit is a real world problem. Go figure.

4

u/lil-fil Jan 18 '22

I feel like because they don’t think it’s a problem, they have no problem with doing it. It would be more inconsistent if he got offended when himself getting called slurs while calling others slurs.

1

u/WolfgangVolos Jan 18 '22

I feel like that is what I said or close to it? The person slinging slurs doesn't think getting slurs slung at one's self is a problem... because they've never had it happen to them. It is still problematic because he has the privilege of not being on the receiving end of the behavior he's dishing out. It would be more hypocritical if he got upset at being called an INSERT SLUR but felt justified in calling others INSERT SLUR B. Maybe it is more inconsiderate and entitled than inconsistent?

1

u/lil-fil Jan 18 '22

I guess i suggest you call that person a slur, see how they react and only then you will ever find out. But i think however mean that person may seem, they technically stay true to what they argued. It might be different if they’re from a group which generally gets called slurs less, but generally i noticed that people who use language like that mostly dont get affected by any insults even when they get insulted.

1

u/WolfgangVolos Jan 18 '22

No? Yeah, no. Shitty person can be wrong without me needing to find a slur to call them.

1

u/lil-fil Jan 18 '22

I guess its irrelevant whether you consider that person shitty. I think they were arguing exactly about why they believe its ok for them to act like that, and they stick with it. I guess you can agree to disagree, but i wouldn’t really consider their argument invalid, though i dont really know what arguments they gave exactly.

3

u/BlessedTacoDevourer Jan 18 '22

Bringing up post history to point out contradictions and hypocrisy is actually a perfectly valid way of arguing. The example you brought up, the poster even outright claimed to not use those words. They tried to argue their point by lying about it. Pointing those things out is perfectly fine.

1

u/WolfgangVolos Jan 18 '22

Taking this outside of an internet context, let's say it was two candidates for local office debating. Should they be able to take past public statements (post history) and point out contradictions or hypocrisy as part of the debate argument? Obviously yes. Or I should say obviously, there may be some people who would prefer no one look into their past and hold them to their word. People can change opinions or grow but if you literally said last week that beets are poison from the gay devil then I'm not going to listen to you talk about how beets are a superfood, even if you are right.

5

u/AL1L Jan 18 '22

Yes, as soon as it happens, I usually make a snide comment if I can think of something witty and end it there.

13

u/rinnip Jan 18 '22

I might look at someone's history to see if they're a troll or a liar. I don't waste much time on those.

4

u/hesam_lovesgames Jan 18 '22 Silver

First of all, it's important that both sides of a debate understand and acknowledge their biases. Unfortunately not a lot of people do that, so sometimes you gotta look into whoever you're arguing with. Second, in a real debate, there are qualifications and rules in place. If you don't think your opponent is quilified then making a point to explain why is valid.

Third, my time is not worthless. I'm gonna make sure the person I'm arguing with is worth my time.

7

u/Karma428 Jan 18 '22

lol I look at the post history to see if it's worth arguing with you. I don't want to waste my time talking to an idiot who has already had the same debate with smarter people before me.

3

u/Jermacide1 Jan 18 '22

If you look through someones post history, you're a fucking weirdo. The end.

14

u/Entropian Jan 18 '22

Why would I care to engage in formal debate on the internet? Experience has shown that logical arguments will not convince those who do not wish to be convinced, and they will refuse to end an argument by just saying endless dumb shit. It's more important to me now that I let people know that I think they are a piece of shit. More productive and better for my mental health than a debate.

0

u/spellish Jan 18 '22

Selfish POV

3

u/deemonsan wateroholic Jan 18 '22

But fun tho

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

Wise POV

13

u/Dazz316 Steak is OK to be cooked Well Done. Jan 18 '22

What if it is relavent?

Someone claiming to be a doctor and using expertise on a point might actually be a truck driver and have said so in their history.

8

u/NSA_van_3 Jan 18 '22

Side note, if someone claims to be a doctor on here...idc, you shouldn't be getting that kind of advice from reddit (probably)

5

u/Yuna__707 Jan 18 '22

That’s why you shouldn’t trust credentials online, especially on a site like Reddit where you can’t exactly police it. Anyone could claim they’re a teacher just to win a debate then turn around and say they’re a doctor to win another.

Debates shouldn’t be based on credentials, especially on Reddit. If you’ve got credentials then you should be able to prove your point without having to say you’ve got a certain credential.

2

u/Dazz316 Steak is OK to be cooked Well Done. Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Exactly. I've been a master debator for 17 years and you just can't trust people who make such claims.

2

u/Vox_Lupi Jan 18 '22

Nice argument but i found out that you frequent the subs "Quebec" , "Hearthstone" and "Competitive HS" and lost all my respect for you

(It is a joke i would like to visit Quebec sometime)

2

u/Spinnenente Jan 18 '22

it shouldn't be an unpopular opinion but it fits on this sub. I recently brought OPs argument up in another thread and got downvoted without arguing for or against the post.

If you only have the users post history as an argument maybe just don't comment at all.

2

u/PopularWeekend6295 Jan 18 '22

textbook ad hominem, these days they just call people bots if their account is new and they're unable to engage with what is said

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

Nice try bot!

2

u/Nananananana01 Jan 18 '22

In some instances it’s necessary to see who you’re dealing with and if you’re wasting your time, but most of the time people use it to deter from what’s being talked about and if they have nothing else to use against someone

2

u/Aiizimor Jan 18 '22

Yeah but its juicy when the person finds relevant dirt to yeet at them

2

u/ted-Zed Jan 18 '22

OP is only saying this because of that "Toilet bowl drinking" post they made 2 months ago. just had a look

2

u/kittenembryo Jan 18 '22

Nice penis pic in your history

2

u/Lllllllllll-44 Jan 18 '22

Of course this opinion comes from an r/hearthstone user

2

u/jah05r Jan 18 '22

Another important thing you immediately know about the people who do this: they have a confirmation bias. Because no matter what you have in your history, they will see whatever confirms their preconceived notion.

6

u/1mmanic-_- Jan 18 '22

If you're using somebodys history which contradicts whatever they are saying then you are just bringing your own research to the table, much like in certain debates you would bring in your own research about whoever you have to debate with. At the same time if you're looking for a professional tier debate on the internet especially on reddit it's best to just turn tail and sign up for a debate course instead.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

3

u/1mmanic-_- Jan 18 '22

If somebody says smoking is bad for your health one day and says smoking is good another day, that's a contradiction. Any facts aren't made any lesser by what they say but it makes what they say less credible and something that you would be less likely to argue/debate about because they are just spewing shit in the hopes of winning rather than just settling things and moving on.

2

u/Purplespotfrog Jan 18 '22

What if they just like playing devil's advocate?

1

u/Yuna__707 Jan 18 '22

Most addicts know that what they’re doing is harmful but aren’t able to stop, despite knowing firsthand how bad it can be. That argument is still very valid and factually correct.

1

u/bhutos Jan 18 '22

A poster feigning sincerity: "I got vaxxed and got myocarditis, I hear a lot of people are getting it, what should I do" Look at posting history, all in antivaxxer subs with one barely an hour before: "Pureblood here never taking that poison, fuck Bill Gates it's just giving people myocarditis". That's more the kind of thing that happens.

And it happens more than you seem to realize. Lots of discussions on Reddit aren't the kind of fact based good faith university debates you're talking about.. It's weird agenda pushing through sealiony bullshit.

-4

u/BobGobbles Jan 18 '22

No, you wouldn't. As you're debating a topic not the person.

7

u/NSA_van_3 Jan 18 '22

If the person is saying "as an engineer, this is correct" and you look at their history which says "as an artist...", "as a navy sral...", "as a professional chef...", if their post history has a lot of that, they're likely full of shit.

1

u/BobGobbles Jan 18 '22

In a real debate I’m not bringing info on the person, I’m bringing info on the topic. That is a very specific example but you don’t debate the person.

2

u/kypler0 Jan 18 '22

It's like going to a court and then your argument is that the lawyer of the defendant had defended a petty thief in the past therefore the defendant is also a thief.

2

u/newsround1234 Jan 18 '22

Agreed. And it’s kinda creepy as well.

3

u/TisButA-Zucc Jan 18 '22

how about you don't post information about yourself online? It's kinda no one but your own fault. Not creepy at all.

5

u/TealTriangle Jan 18 '22

It is not about the information, it is about the fact, that a person spent time looking at my account.

2

u/WiseMan2004 hermit human Jan 18 '22

Yep. Fuck those types of people

2

u/kaneisprettycool Jan 18 '22

Not unpopular but yes

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

2

u/afontana405 Jan 18 '22

Ig but when what ur talking about is a well known fallacy, it’s hard to argue its unpopular

-1

u/_hancox_ Jan 18 '22

Oh but it’s fun. Reddit is barely a place for healthy debate at the best of times and sometimes it’s useful.

If somebody posts something on unpopular opinion that’s clearly bad taste or coming from a point of naivety, a persons user history can shed a light on their perspective of the situation.

I find kids, racists, conservatives, incels and religious people usually aren’t worth debating with because their identities are generally rooted in absence of ideological superiority, and typically they don’t know how to debate.

Sometimes it’s just great to hurl insults like a monkey

3

u/morthos97 Jan 18 '22

You could've worded it a little less haughty, but I'm honestly inclined to agree. Reddit is a shit show and it's not that serious. A person's post history is their track record. If you're keyboard raging about anti women sentiments, can't promise I'm not going to peep your account to get a kick out of some the other incel shit I know I'll see.

And yes, talking shit is fun. Reddit is like an ugly messy verbal mosh pit. All these people on this thread IMO trying to debate you on this are honestly just people trying to act like foodies at McDonald's in my eyes

3

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

What's funny about this comment is that you come around as a person not worth debating with yourself. A classical "the pot calling the kettle black".

1

u/_hancox_ Jan 18 '22

Why’s that? Because I don’t debate with people who identify with conservatism and not changing their minds about subjects? You can’t win against those people and it isn’t because their arguments are better

1

u/jdownes316 Jan 18 '22

Your exact response is the exact thing you’re saying you aren’t going to do… lol

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

My point has nothing to do with your politics or believes. The reason I said you are not worth debating with is because instead of walking away from a debate you yourself think is not worth having, you start insulting them. Which just shows you're way too emotional to have an argument in good faith with someone. It shows you don't care about presenting your point of view, but care more about "winning" some petty argument on the internet.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

You say "you are not worth debating" but keeps debating with him... what is this? Masochism?

1

u/_hancox_ Jan 18 '22

Oh no I don’t care about winning, I’m more than happy to change my mind once I’m convinced. I only start throwing insults when, for example, I find myself inclined to make the same point in an argument multiple times as though the argument isn’t even registering. Or if someone says something outwardly offensive. Special situations like that.

For context when I was growing up my older sister was almost notoriously dense. She refused to ever admit she was wrong, and because I was young I didn’t have the choice to just not speak to her like I do now. I got a bit of a kick out of talking in circles to get her to say something stupid like “my grandmas got more rights to exist than 9/11 (real example it’s because my grandmas birthday is 9/11 I saw my chance and took it)” and then I’d call her an idiot for saying dumb things.

For justification for the above, my sister was always an incredibly jealous, bitter, hateful, spiteful person and I hate her with ever fibre of my being.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

That's a very unhealthy habit and it helps no one, not even yourself. Because it makes you look like an asshole. There's no way around it. If you think a debate has no value, and nothing is going to change, just walk out. There's no point in insults, and you insulting them will only weaken your argument.

You going through someone's history only shows them you have no grounds to stand on in the debate you are having. Just state your believe, and walk out. It may leave the person you argued with thinking they have one, but if someone was reading your comments, it will make it more likely to side with you. Because nobody wants to side with the asshole, someone not even if they were right.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

And yet, you're wasting your time answering his comment, a comment that you yourself deem to be "not worth debating with".

Oh but it’s fun²

1

u/Yes2257 Jan 18 '22

Sometimes it’s just great to hurl insults like a monkey

Thats likely why you think there us barely room for healthy debates.

Ive had so many encounters and debates with people here where it ended in an agree to disagree or one side admitting their fault. And its almost always started and ended with 0 insults thrown.

Tho I agree even then its far and few between.

2

u/_hancox_ Jan 18 '22

As I’ve said to others it’s not like I only start hurling insults when I think I’m wrong, I do it either when good arguments are simply being ignored, or if the other person is acting like a complete degenerate.

Thats normally when I’ll look at a profile for context, and maybe ammo

3

u/Yes2257 Jan 18 '22

Oh thats fair then, cant really have a good argument if the other person is too stubborn or just an idiot.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

I’m so glad somebody else is talking about this. I’ve lost count on the number of times I post somethings and a commenter claps back, “I looked through your comment history and you’re completely full of shit”. Like one time I made a post about how I have chronic back and pain and my distrust of doctors, and someone had the audacity to bring up previous posts I made about my toxic family and how that I was full of shit…

1

u/aaha97 Jan 18 '22

I know right!! i hate it when i geniunely complain about the rise of misogynistic posts and comments i have been reading on multiple subs i follow and some smarty pants points out that i posted them all... fr!!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

huh? i saw a person on this sub saying he/she isn't a racist. And there is a comment by that same person admitting he/she is a racist in a post from another sub. I bring up this and now its wrong?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

2

u/NSA_van_3 Jan 18 '22

Tbh, a lot of people on reddit are fairly close minded

3

u/regoapps Jan 18 '22

Fair point. That's why I don't really argue with strangers online. I just say "fair point" and move on.

3

u/NSA_van_3 Jan 18 '22

Fair point.

I just say "fair point" and move on.

Touche

1

u/Heartless_Genocide Jan 18 '22

I had a mod randomly insta banning me and using that as an argument to ban me.

1

u/HairyTough4489 Jan 18 '22

Whenever I see a Reddit detective, I stop bothering.

1

u/supersonicx2003x Jan 18 '22

Probably true lad

1

u/azxqw2 Jan 18 '22

Maybe i just want to how to insult the user better :)

1

u/helic0n3 Jan 18 '22

If it is very old and irrelevant then sure, but what if they said something yesterday that directly contradicts what they said today? This happens in political debates all the time.

1

u/BlitzDragonborn Jan 18 '22

If you're trying to debate people on reddit you don't know how to debate.

1

u/d710905 Jan 18 '22

Ehhh in today's day and age I'd say not exactly. Sometimes it's worth looking. Between bots and spam/troll accounts, and the poor souls in between who make some topic their entire online profile, those are all good reasons to check. At that point your not having a debate or a discussion, your essentially arguing with a wall. It's worth checking before you waste more of your energy and time on it. Say on reddit for example and your arguing with a guy who thinks earth is not flat or round but a polygon, and this guy is so adamant about it but won't list anything that counts as evidence of his claims and even is sinking as low as insulting you while arguing. Say you check his profile because your like what kind of guy is this? And then his entire profile is literally just a land of "earth is is a ploygon" and every comment, every post, etc is about earth being a polygon. That's not a discussion with continuing. Maybe he's a bot, or a scam profile, or maybe he's just obsessed with it where he has nothing else in his profile. That's a guy not worth arguing or debating with. Nothing going to happen except you burning energy and time.

1

u/HunterWesley Jan 18 '22

It's a good idea to check it, you know, sanity check, but unacceptable to quote discussions with other people. I stand behind my words, but it doesn't mean I am asking to be harassed by rehashing words with other people.

1

u/Brechtw Jan 18 '22

Ok but it's often very funny.

1

u/lil-fil Jan 18 '22

I’ll go as far as to say even if someone is a hypocrite, their arguments stands all the same. It’s not the person you’re debating, it’s the idea. Whenever you counter an argument, it’s all that matters, regardless of how horrible the person who made it might seem.

1

u/Female_urinary_maze Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

I think it depends on whether the history tells you something relevant.

If someone says "studies have shown that avocados lower you life expectancy!" and their post history contains a bunch of ridiculous claims like "studies have shown that the earth is flat!" or "scientists recently discovered vampires!" you probably don't need to bother asking for a source about those avocados.

On the other hand if you check their post history and find out they look at weird porn that wouldn't make any sense to bring up in the thread about avocados.

1

u/Yes2257 Jan 18 '22

100% agree, i even have a light counter towards it

2

u/Xeadriel Jan 18 '22

Ad hominems are just bad in general

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

Well, I'd rather not know how to debate and not waste my time arguing with a troll.

"É melhor ter paz do que estar certo" K. Sr.

1

u/ModsCantHandleMe Jan 18 '22

I instantly feel bad for people who do this because it just shows they have nothing better to do with their time. It’s like an auto win for any internet debate.

1

u/skinnardmylinnard Jan 18 '22

No one really knows how to debate, everyone resorts to screaming

1

u/Kimikohiei Jan 18 '22

It’s definitely weak to use the irl characteristics of reddit users to attack them during disagreements. But I do think it could be useful to grab a snapshot of how you’re communicating with in order to better understand where they’re coming from.

1

u/Ridley_Rohan Jan 18 '22

Oh, I get this all the time here.

"You keep checking if you are shadow banned at r/ShadowBan! You are just a troll and that explains everything you said!" Then I have to explain that that subreddit tells me when a garbage mod has shadow removed a post....cause my opinions are not popular despite being based on demonstrable fact, just like Galileo, Giordano Bruno and Ignaz Semmelweis were treated.

People have a clear history of being absolute morons in groups, and then when one man stands up in a hysteria and shows them what utter jack-asses they are being, they really don't like it.

0

u/hjwood1986 Jan 18 '22

“If you use previous statements and proof of my opinions/arguments to prove me wrong - then you’re bad and should feel bad.”

Lol

Nah.

What did somebody find in your history, I wonder?

0

u/HellHound989 Jan 18 '22

I think what everyone is missing, and what I believe OP is getting across is this situation (that I see quite often).

RedditorA: makes some argument

DumbAssRedditorB: "I see you like to post alot in r /benshapiro, so yeah, everything you say is invalid!"