They do the same spergy thing every damn time.
The Redditfag Gambit to terminate discussion that triggers their feefees.
- Papers! I demand papers because scientism! Calling a paper wrong is tantamount to disproving its concept! Show me papers I’m too lazy to look up so I can moan they aren’t sciencey enough in my superior opinion and furthermore, you cherrypicked them for me, how dare you!
- Tell me your qualifications so I can tell you they’re inadequate and feel better about not understanding and ignoring you.
- Fallacy fallacy. If I use this word often enough without explaining how it applies in specific cases maybe you’ll confuse me for a person with two brain cells to rub together.
- When caught on a point, I shall ignore it, for I have no faith, even bad faith. God himself couldn’t correct me. All hail Richard Dawkins, pedo be his rumours.
- I don’t work in this field but I’m pretty sure I know it better than the person using all the terminology correctly.
- I know all about this topic because I saw a meme once.
- Cliche soundbites I’m pretending I came up with.
- Off-topic reference, derailing impossibly ambiguous over-broad questions and randomly quoting you (like wow, just wow) make me look like I read the whole thing in spite of overt ADD.
- My feelings are hurt, you are wrong. QED. Also, you are terrible.
- Stop writing, nobody likes you because my opinion is gospel. Muh peer review appeal to standards uber alles, ignore the mass fraud, and blog posts should be held to the same standard as experimental papers. As in, a scientist never writes like a filthy normie or cracks a joke bc Sheldon Cooper.
Paper Strawmans, casual tone policing (well, the Internet is peer-reviewed, is it not?) and self-congratulation.
It’s like watching a dog eat its own vomit.