Define “aggressive”.
If it means we enter the debate with some very strong counterpoints to your often unsubstantiated claims, then yes, we are aggressive as hell.
We don’t care who you are or what your favorite hero is. If we disagree with you, we will make it crystal clear that that is the case.
Like this one?
Your first assertion is objectively false, speaking as someone who never mained Mercy until season 3. Aaaand… what’s thread #1 of all time right now?
Taking that further, literally the only people determining what you are and aren’t allowed to say on the forums are the moderators. The assertion that you cannot talk about Mercy unless you have 100 hours on her or support X position is absurd.
The third assertion about us suppressing opposition is honestly hilarious.
Definitions of “suppress”:
- Forcibly put an end to.
- Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.
- Prevent the dissemination of (information).
- Prevent or inhibit (a process or reaction).
- Partly or wholly eliminate (electrical interference).
- Consciously inhibit (an unpleasant idea or memory) to avoid considering it.
We cannot remove your arguments. We cannot prevent them from spreading (and in actuality, replying to your threads bumps them and allows more people to see them).
We literally cannot suppress your arguments. Do you know what we can do? We can shoot them down. There is a very big difference between the two.
Don’t like your arguments being shot down? Maybe you should take positions and make assertions that you can actually back up; the flak isn’t going to end just because you’re crying about being “suppressed”.
Which he literally has never said.
Well, when you open a topic directly attacking a group and/or their positions, you can expect said group to appear and retaliate. The “us versus them” mentality is initiated by the first post, which carries that mentality itself.
When your first order of business is to make a thread labeling the opposition as “spam” because you disagree with them, that doesn’t necessarily inspire any emotions short of hostile in those you accuse of “spamming”.
Which is to say, they were supporting you, which was “fine”.
A thread that no longer supported you, which was no longer “fine”.
Does it say something about how sturdy your position is when a handful of people voice disagreement and everyone else abandons the thread?
If your position was defensible, people would have kept defending it rather than abandoning the thread; it started off as your echochamber.
Sorry, but generalizing and labeling the opposition as “spam” doesn’t exactly inspire discussion.
Translation: “They’re kicking the support out from under the argument without directly attacking the argument.”
When kicking the support out from under an argument is how you undermine an argument.
Because if you want to know what our arguments are, or if you want to shoot them down, that’s where you ought to start. Everything is has been laid out for you to take potshots at.
The problem is that very few people are who disagree with us are willing to read half of the thread’s contents, so they walk into the conversation ignorant and then they stay ignorant.
Of the few people who both disagree with the positions presented and who read the full post, even fewer of them are willing to try shooting it down, and the people who do try to shoot it down fail when they realize the arguments they presented have already been dismantled in the post they are trying to shoot down.
People link that thread because it has everything on our positions in regards to Mercy. It is the end-all-be-all.
When you outright admit to attempting to silence us via flagging, and when you have arguments partially comprised of or founded upon generalizations, labels, and personal attacks, you can expect us to take it personally.
I have yet to see you actually take a position in regards to Mercy. Everything I have seen from you is more of an attack on us than it is an opinion on the issue at hand.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t be replying to you, would we?
But just a second ago, you were complaining about how we were being too “aggressive”.