Surprised there aren't any comments whining about this because the scammers are bigger victims. Usually there's at least one.
replies(2):
This is called a totem.
You’ve invented or learned a caricature to rail at which may have once been based in truth, and from time to time again approximates it, though never with the fidelity you ascribe to the original. It’s commonly done by sides in partisan polarisation, the most common being a two-mode system that pillories its picture of the other.
If you picture the person writing the totem comment, you probably have a clear idea of what they do for a living, how they dress, et cetera. Totems are why both deification and demonisation work; they’re a hack of the human ability to visualise and project.
Analogy: phantom pain is pain in a limb that was once there but now isn’t. The limb was real. It probably felt pain. But when a patient imagines pain after the limb is gone, that’s the diagnosis.
Those comments are real. The people, probably, too. Responding to them when they aren’t in the room is a separate matter.
This is the totem. You react to a misguided belief even when it’s a phantom.
If you look at two-mode polarised discussions, you’ll find both sides talking about a totem of the other, reacting to imagined preëmptions and rarely interacting with each other. The graphs separate. As a result, the preëmptions are more imagined than real. (Both in characterisation and frequency of emergence.
Note that this is perfectly normal. Kids do it. And it’s fun. It’s also easy, since instead of reacting to anything empirical or well argued you’re constructing straw men for the purpose of taking them down.
I clarified my position. The visualisation isn't the totem per se. The representation is.
> term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct
Nobody said you were wrong. Correct, necessary and even germane are distinct.