>
Readers: look at this train wreck of a thread and notice how effective the tactic was. Notice how little the subthread has to do not only with the original story --- it's disconnection to the story is bad enough --- but to the actual comment it responds to, which doesn't even mention violence.Are you kidding me? First of all ""I'm glad I wasn't there to witness <loved one> being harassed" implies violence clearly ("or who knows what I've done" etc). I
Second, this very subtread began with the suggestion of punching the "the guy in the face", followed by the question whether "jokes justify violence".
Then there's the appalling call to the "Readers" -- as if to say: hey, fellow HNs, come see these wild specimens of unpopular opinion. Let's bully them/downvote them all together. That, along with name-calling ("trolls", "MRA", etc).
Because of course, somebody can't call against violence to a person who did such a thing unless he's an MRA, right? I mean, it's logically impossible that someone can be against such kind of violent responses in general, even if the offender had insulted another male or a gay, or even if the offender was a woman, right?
>Like I said: I'm sincerely suspect this is in an actual playbook of MRA trolling techniques.
And like I often say: people who see trolling in candid opinions they don't like are either using the accusation dishonestly to shut people up, or live in an echo chamber.
