you singled out literally one point from a post where the op had already (fairly eloquently) explained why they had been upset by a scenario and why it impacted them. your second post gave more clarity on why you did this and where you were coming from, and probably could have been included in your initial response. the question on it’s own did look thoughtless, even if that wasn’t your intention.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Well apologies maybe I should’ve been clearer to start .
The worst thing is, the guy was literally a scammer as well
he had a patent all ready to go for a test which supposedly detected autism caused by bacteria.Andrew Wakefield is despicable, yet some still herald him as a hero and think he was unfairly silenced 
its sad that still today people are hesitant because of his fraudulent study, these are nasty but preventable diseases.
Edit to add: I worked in paeds for many years, supporting parents is a big part of the job and many would question if it was something they had done (albeit normally rhetorical rather than expecting an answer). That answer was invariably always no, but many would search for something to try and make sense of it and find a reason when invariably it is 'just because'.
its sad that still today people are hesitant because of his fraudulent study, these are nasty but preventable diseases.Edit to add: I worked in paeds for many years, supporting parents is a big part of the job and many would question if it was something they had done (albeit normally rhetorical rather than expecting an answer). That answer was invariably always no, but many would search for something to try and make sense of it and find a reason when invariably it is 'just because'.
Indeed, he was struck off here, but as @struggs123 said, that plays into the conspiracy theorists' hands, because they can say he was being silenced.The worst thing is, the guy was literally a scammer as well
I can partially understand parents of autistic children wondering if it was something to do with their parenting, or something they gave their child, but when other people with no links to autism spread that rhetoric it's almost like they want to be hurtful.
In my experience I've always felt that there are one or two posters who like to "run with the hare and hunt with the hound". When I first joined Tattle one of the most obvious proponents was disconcertingly also a moderator. I haven't come across that person for some time but then again I have also given up on some threads. I'll let others decide if the phenomenon still exists.@OwlAtTheMoon - It sounds like they could use some of their own advice.
But to be honest, it's not worth it. I avoid that place now, as no deviation from the anti vaccine viewpoint is tolerated and because they're in the majority, you just get ganged up on.
That phenomenon defo exists, I also have seen people on twitter who will purposely troll CTists by posting mental fake CTs just to see if they believe them (and a lot of the time they actually don’t realize the person is taking the piss out of them and go along with it
). Personally I think that’s a bit cruel, but it does show how easily some people will just automatically accept a crazy theory when it’s put to them.
It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that certain sites actually hire people to stir up some controversy, to play devil's advocate across different areas. Basic human psychology tell us that people are drawn to reading about or participating in drama and conflict, even if ultimately they're disturbed or upset by it. Facebook maybe does this? You see this kind of button-pushing, trolling behaviour on other platforms too. Twitter can be a bit relentless with it (even if there are some good parts to twitter too).That phenomenon defo exists, I also have seen people on twitter who will purposely troll CTists by posting mental fake CTs just to see if they believe them (and a lot of the time they actually don’t realize the person is taking the piss out of them and go along with it
Personally I think that’s a bit cruel, but it does show how easily some people will just automatically accept a crazy theory when it’s put to them.
In a way it would make more sense to me if these trolling types were indeed hired. Because otherwise, who the feck would genuinely choose to behave like that online off their own back??
I don’t think they need to hire people when there are attention seeking trolls like Katie Hopkins to stir discontent.It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that certain sites actually hire people to stir up some controversy, to play devil's advocate across different areas. Basic human psychology tell us that people are drawn to reading about or participating in drama and conflict, even if ultimately they're disturbed or upset by it. Facebook maybe does this? You see this kind of button-pushing, trolling behaviour on other platforms too. Twitter can be a bit relentless with it (even if there are some good parts to twitter too).
In a way it would make more sense to me if these trolling types were indeed hired. Because otherwise, who the feck would genuinely choose to behave like that online off their own back??
Just seen people on twitter demanding to know if the pilots in the Nepal plane crash yesterday were vaccinated against covid or not 
Just when you think they can't get worse they manage to surprise.Just seen people on twitter demanding to know if the pilots in the Nepal plane crash yesterday were vaccinated against covid or not
Oh ffs.Just seen people on twitter demanding to know if the pilots in the Nepal plane crash yesterday were vaccinated against covid or not
At this point they must be trolling!
Why does that not surprise me?
Literally. It’s like, ok then let’s just forget about the facts that Nepal has huge aviation safety issues to the point that all Nepalese airlines are banned from entering British and EU airspace and an extremely high accident rate.
Pilot must have had a vaccine induced heart attack mid flight. There is simply no other explanation.
Just. Aaarghh!Just seen people on twitter demanding to know if the pilots in the Nepal plane crash yesterday were vaccinated against covid or not
OTOH I do think it's entirely reasonable to post on opposing threads if one feels one has a valid contribution to make though there is often an element of more careful wording since I am more frequently here than there.
Definitely! FB algorithms promote revenue-generating content, and stuff with a high rate of posting and a high number of participants will fit that, especially if it relates to current affairs and someone is paying for a bit of extra attention for their related content to be pushed up the list.
(the mechanism itself of course neither knows nor cares about the actual content, just that it has a revenue score)
Social media feeds are also influenced by things you have searched, liked and watched so i can see how when people keep seeing stuff that supports a view it can seem like theres loads of evidence when really it's cherry picked and very one sided. It's easy to end up down rabbit holes especially if you don't understand the content and are relying on what people are saying and the conclusions they are drawing, and if its constantly being fed to you it's not hard to see how some get drawn in.
I wasn't thinking about people who choose to post on opposing threads. It's what they choose to post that has sometimes surprised me.
Fair point, it just seemed worth differentiating!
The things that surprise me most are more often than not those that are posted in earnest and I then have to read those at least twice to be sure wtf I just read.
- Status