[jauntywundrkind]

Thankfully I think we did a fairly good job succinctly taking the sabotures to task this time around on these climate issues. The fine technicalities any contrarianism rested on looked ridiculous.

On so many topics all it takes is two or three seeds of chaos & the core points are all missed, amid endless debate on absurd distantly related topics. Injecting false debates can quite effectively smokescreen the topic at hand.

Online especially there's also a lot of people with agendas, either hidden or proudly worn. Give how transactional exchanges are, how little reputation really follow one around, the ability for either crazy or just-incredibly-slanted-agenda-keeping to inject itself in & distort the conversation is very high.

There's also the silent majority factor online. Most people don't comment in to say, "that was great, thanks, seemed spot on". The people most likely to comment are squeaky wheels, are people who make noise & they are more likely to have Very Serious Opinions.

Trying to just show up and spread some positivity &highlight good points is enormously appreciated. But alas also makes you a target for those whose behavior pattern is reflexive contrarianism. What a term!

[edbaskerville]

Yes, that's a good point, that in well-moderated environments you can call them out effectively.

And silent majority, indeed. Too bad the term "silent majority" has been co-opted by the loudest and most misguided minority.

[jauntywundrkind]

100% on point irony & sadness vis-a-vie silent majority. I think the idea is such a useful, true & important idea.

I've struggled to find a good succinct way to capture the idea, that doesn't also have the bogus historical baggage.