You know what I'm talking about. Some threads go like this: OP: The sky is falling {{link}} Response: Nope, debunked {{link}} Next response: I can't believe the sky is falling! Next response: I can't believe the sky is falling! Next response: Nope, debunked {{link}} Next response: I can't believe the sky is falling! Next response: Nope, debunked {{link}} Next response: I can't believe the sky is falling! Next response: Nope, debunked {{link}} I don't get it. Help me understand! TYVM.
People who want to be outraged about a thing find evidence invalidating their outrage to be inconvenient.
You are being gracious. I don't understand why some people don't bother reading the OP and associated links, if any, BEFORE responding. P.S. And the obligatory...What???? The sky is falling!!!!!!!!
People seek to confirm their biases. No one is immune to it. The best we can hope to do is be cognizant of when it is happening.
What if you are the first to respond should you wait? Then nobody would ever respond and there would be no threads with discussions. Then the site would close and then what?
Nothing in the OP suggests that people shouldn't respond to posts unless your post is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.
Case in point. Almost exactly like my silly example in the OP. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/real-clear-politics-un-calls-the-potus-election.581051/
Doesn't matter. The man thinks women are miserable now that they don't need a man's permission to get a credit card. I don't need to see that crap.