Noooo, not our precious shitskins! [919x1024 - 133KB]

[–] • 1 pt

The obvious assessment of this outlandish story is that the author of that text is yanking the chain of reddit posters by trying to be even more absurd than they are.

In the land of absurdity were you are not allowed to disagree, then agree whole heatedly and agree to an absurd extreme.

Now the reddit readers are thinking this whole thing has gone wacked out too far.

How far do you think the author would have gotten by trying to argue that Trump was not Hilter and that open boarders were a bad idea? Or that we should protect our own people first.

link

[–] • 0 pt

There should be a term for this.

I see this strategy enacted in some mainstream forums and it sort of works because leftists are so deranged already that the "absurd" parody shit-posts and trolling accounts are just a hair-line away and often crossover with what leftists type.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Scott Adams has spoken about this concept when to comes to situations where you are not allowed to disagree.

I think he used terms such as "Enthusiastic Agreement" and "Enthusiastically Agree."

parent
link

Posting tips:

After posting a link, don't forget to back up your shared link into at least one web archival service, such as and .

Optionally, apply the ?limit=500 URL parameter to archive more comments of a large conversation.

Feedback about this subverse is welcome. Add the “Meta” flair to your post.

To historical posts, preferably add a date at the end of the title and the flair “Historical”.

Note to readers:

Custom emojis:

, `

Putting words into user's mouths, which means making them appear like they wrote something they never actually did, especially on sensitive posts, is one of the greatest violations of user trust possible.

Although shortly after he applogized and promised never to do it again, it clearly gives away how Reddit tends to handle criticism.

(post is archived)

Posting tips:

Custom emojis:

Resources

Also see:

CSS information