Grandpa Lampshade has come around to the idea that there is more to the concept of the gamma behavioral pattern than the mere desire to devalue disagreement:
Just wanted to say that I thought that the whole “gamma” thing came off a bit like “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me = gamma”
I was wrong.
The patterns are like the “Well actually” meme; instead of simply pointing out where one could be incorrect about something, it always seems to be some form of semantics and always framed as a “gotcha” from a standpoint of superiority.
This is precisely why I no longer tolerate any mention of me, my motivations, my inclinations, or my objectives in the general discourse here. Because it’s not all about me and there isn’t a single idea that can be negated by my personal flaws and failings or proven by my positive attributes and accomplishments.
Argument ad hominem isn’t merely a logical fallacy, not infrequently it is utilized as a dishonest rhetorical attempt to distract, discredit, and derail.
A government employee who has been responsible for public outreach during the pandemic adds his two cents on how to distinguish between people who are legitimately asking questions and those who are there to argue:
If the questioner refuses to click on a link, call a number, or take any effort at all to read or know the answer, then they are there to argue. Many times they have already read the answer and simply want to gripe. Other times, the answer is irrelevant and they just want to argue. They may have already asked multiple people and are digging for the answer they want to hear in order to pit different groups against each, and once again, argue.
They waste everyone’s time and that is their actual goal.