Reliable Sources: @TracingWoodgrains's story about a Wikipedia admin who may be the only man more online than @TracingWoodgrains is (with a brief r/drama cameo!)

I disagree, have you READ the Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies?

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

I really recommend reading the whole thing. If you seriously say "Why would the powers that be want to control general public sentiment using the internet?" I will assume you're arguing in bad faith and be mean to you.

!followers you will always be pinged to come see the Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies.