3 ms·

Then how do you know I am jumping `hastily jumping to the "troll" conclusion` instead of actually went through his comments and think he is trolling? By trollin

Then how do you know I am jumping `hastily jumping to the "troll" conclusion` instead of actually went through his comments and think he is trolling? By trolling I mean the original meaning instead of the malicious one. He might be an average guy who is not believing those extreme takes and just having fun provoking reactions. And I personally believe that that's the case for most of the people Aren't you the one who is hastily jumping to the conclusion by just saying I am hastily jumping into the conclusion?

gruez 3y ago
touche ;) Your initial comment was 9 words long and asserted that he was a troll with no justification whatsoever ("Check the history" isn't a justification in the same vein that "do your own research" isn't). While it's possible that you went through his full comment history, pulled out all the stops to do a psychometric profile on him, and concluded that he was acting in bad faith, I find that unlikely given how brief your comment was. So far as I can tell, his comment history might have "bad takes", but they're consistent with mainstream conservative ideology. Unless you want to write off the entire right wing as acting in bad faith for holding their beliefs, I don't think it's reasonable to assume someone expressing conservative beliefs are acting in bad faith. On the other hand, I think most liberals and conservatives would agree that accusing someone of acting in bad faith without the requisite justification, is bad faith behavior and should be called out. Even the bad faith accusation is actually correct, we as a society can't tolerate everyone flinging around unsubstantiated bad faith accusations indiscriminately.