Comment by timschmidt

What does this say about the post's author's approach to discussion?

"It suggests the author treats the thread less like a joint search for truth and more like an adversarial contest they intend to win—mainly by controlling the frame, the burden of proof, and the audience’s impression of credibility.

Debate-as-prosecution mindset: They stack demands (“Even better…”) to keep the other person perpetually answering instead of advancing their own case. That’s a control tactic: tempo and agenda stay with them.

High skepticism aimed outward, not inward: They insist on exact wording and dismiss anything not explicitly stated as “speculation,” while leaning heavily on indirect proxies (no lawsuit, no committee action, absence in leaks) that aren’t equally “explicit.” That asymmetry is a tell.

Institutional and procedural gatekeeping: They treat “courts/standing/oversight” as the main truth-filter. This often signals: “If it were real, the system would have validated it,” which can be a genuine heuristic but also a way to end discussion without engaging messy uncertainty.

Status and ridicule as persuasion: The ad hominem (“lunatic ravings,” “middle manager”) and condescension (“Do you know what standing means?”) show they’re comfortable using social pressure and humiliation to delegitimize rather than patiently clarify.

Binary framing of the other side: They recast the opponent’s position as either “conspiracy theory” or “relying on a crazy ex-employee,” leaving little room for nuanced middle ground. That’s more about cornering than understanding.

Net: the author likely values rhetorical dominance and public signaling (“this claim is unserious”) over cooperative interpretation."