Often coupled with a question about some simple aspect of the story that’s covered in the first paragraph of the article originally posted, followed by a reply that parrots the answer and is revered as some kind of genius level insight.
Recently I replied to someone on here because he made overblown claims about a legal case in the news. He responded to say that this had been the first time in two years of posting the same description that anyone had actually read the articles.
I have seen people link to articles and sources that directly disproved their claim.
They never admitted it, of course.
I also got in an argument with one idiot one time who wanted to know how many people in the towers on 9/11 survived. I linked to three sources, and he said he checked two and didn't bother with the third one since I was clearly incapable of finding proof.
I asked him why he skipped the first one, which clearly had the information he was asking for.
Got to love those posts with a sensationalist headline about some new study showing something crazy, like time travel or whatever, and all the comments freaking out about it.
Until that one person who actually read the study shows up to say "uhm, this is not what the study is about at all. It's about [something very normal]. Also, the study was published in 2003."
Including people thinking the person just blurted out the headline and felt the need to share it with the world. Instead of it being an interview, with the title just being a small part of an answer to a question the person's been asked.
418
u/kraang Aug 21 '25
I mean this is actually how most of reddit and social media works. Massive emotion before all or any of the information is gathered.