Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

[MNskeptic]

Is the answer because they secretly believe that BF is possible? Or they actually want and hope BF is real?

I'm having trouble understanding why someone would waste their time with all this BF stuff if they truly believe there is no possibility BF exists. I don't believe in fairies and see no reason to participate in forums about the same.

What gives?

MNSkeptic

[Rockape]

Because they all think they are smarter than you and are trying to save you from yourself.

[Bonehead74]

^^^This^^^

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I've dealt with denialists for a while. Many of them were Bigfoot proponents, but have switched beliefs at some point if you know what I mean. Unlike most people who don't believe in Bigfoot, a denialist's belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist is actually pretty fragile. Some of them will throw insults or say hurtful things if you post something that challenges their belief system. They pose as skeptics, but if you read some of their stuff, you'll see that they're actually lacking in skepticism. The subject attracts them, but their focus is on things that'll help them believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Pretty messed up huh

 

 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

That is a great question! On the surface it definitely does not seem logical. Beneath the surface there must be some motivation, although this may be unknown even to the person in question, considering that it may be a subconscious motivation. When someone says they have an interest in bigfoot it would be logical to assume that they are interested in the possibility of existence or that they believe in its existence- both being pro-bigfoot as it were. Someone who has an interest in bigfoot but does not believe in the possibility of such an animal is very likely, as Rockape pointed out, attempting to display what they believe to be some type of superiority in knowledge, perhaps to make themselves feel better. I think it likely depends on the individual, because there are probably some who simply wish to understand why others believe in the existence of bigfoot.

 

This begs the question however of why they stick around. Their curiosity could be satisfied relatively quickly, considering that the reasons for believing in bigfoot have been stated over and over again. Either someone is an eyewitness to one or more of these animals, or they believe that the abundance of evidence definitely suggests the existence of an undocumented primate. Relatively straightforward if you ask me. Curiosity satisfied.

 

Then there are those individuals who simply like conflict, again due to a need to appear more intelligent than other people, or possibly for other reasons. Some non-believers are definitely more invested than others, and I have seen some go to extreme lengths in an attempt to show that bigfoot does not or can not exist. Those are some of the possibilities that come to mind anyway. I usually do not mind that someone does not share my beliefs, especially when they go about challenging something in an acceptable manner. Having people to challenge your beliefs will force you to re-evaluate and potentially modify them based upon reasoned argument or new information. I find it no different than a sasquatch proponent proposing alternatives to bigfoot in certain instances, as this serves to eliminate unneeded or incorrect information, bolster ideas, etc. But I think most of us have seen a type of person who takes things to a different level. And lastly, what bothers me the most, are those people who fit this latter description who serve to disrupt communications. I mean it is generally understood that a sasquatch discussion group, who only discuss sasquatch, will be reserved for believers. Again because non-believers have few good reasons for hanging around such a community. Out of all the possible reasons only a few of them are positive, while the rest are negative- things like feeling superior, making fun of believers, finding believers entertaining and humorous, etc... I would gladly accept the positive types of non-believers, no matter their motivations, but the negative motivations annoy me. I am quite sure that most people would agree with me, although I kind of went about attempting to make my point in a roundabout, convoluted, and lengthy manner. I'm sure everyone is used to it by now though, lol. It is probably better for the site though, considering that it is more content, thus might show up in a search. Always an upside, haha.

Edited May 23, 2015 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest insanity42]

While I don’t think this answers your question entirely, it may be relevant.

The article is not open access, but here is the abstract and the citation.

Abstract

In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paulhus, Trolls just want to have fun, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 67, September 2014, Pages 97-102, ISSN 0191-8869, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016.

 

I recall another study being published a year or two ago that was on similar lines, but haven't found it yet.

[Airdale]

I've dealt with denialists for a while. Many of them were Bigfoot proponents, but have switched beliefs at some point if you know what I mean. Unlike most people who don't believe in Bigfoot, a denialist's belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist is actually pretty fragile. Some of them will throw insults or say hurtful things if you post something that challenges their belief system. They pose as skeptics, but if you read some of their stuff, you'll see that they're actually lacking in skepticism. The subject attracts them, but their focus is on things that'll help them believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Pretty messed up huh

 

Your last sentence says it all, OS. Took me a few months on the BFF to figure it out and start to put certain members on ignore. The irony is, those who continue to engage them in fruitless conversation simply encourage them to stay. I strongly believe that if 80 to 90 percent of serious active members, including knowers, believers and honest skeptics, used the ignore feature on the same group of a dozen or fifteen people, those folks would bail in short order. That would leave the BFF a tiny bit leaner but a vastly improved forum for serious discussion of all things Bigfoot among people who, regardless of their current position, are truly interested in advancing their knowledge of the subject. This stratagem however, would work only if the majority of members who seem to enjoy tilting at windmills manage to restrain the impulse. I am not sanguine that such will happen anytime soon.

[BigTreeWalker]

Jiggy, I agree with your assessment!

Airedale, the biggest problem is when your new to the forum your still trying to figure out what's what and who's who!

But I am learning quickly.

[Faenor]

As a staunch denialist and certified scofftic i once attempted to put all the proponents,believers,knowers,and inbetweeners on ignore so i wouldn't have to listen to their opinions. It got real lonely

[Guest]

 What gives?

 

 

It is the unfortunate downside of the age of the internet. If they actually had to get dressed and get out to a bigfoot symposium and argue face to face they would be too shy and scared to so they wouldn't do it. It's the same with sports. Forums and message boards and news stories are full of trolls posting venomous tripe about rival football teams. Again if they had to get dressed and walk into a bar where rival football fans congregate and argue that their club is crap then they would be too shy and too scared to.

Unfortunately the internet gives cyber trolls an anonymous mouthpiece where they can spout their rhetoric from the safety of their own homes without ever having to meet anyone and argue their case face to face in the real world.

[Guest Crowlogic]

As a former proponent it's not difficult to observe the bigfoot continuum.  Those times when I speak out are not designed to throw the believer off the track of belief. It is designed to present a more rational mindset that may have a positive effect on helping to remove some of the more untenable ideas that have taken root in the believer camp.  For example bigfoot is nearly everywhere and there is a large population of them.  

 

It is also interesting to view how the entire bigfoot continuum recreates itself as needed in order to perpetuate the mythology when obviously solid approaches in technology are unsuccessful.  For example game camera failure because bigfoot can hear the cameras or otherwise sense them. 

[Sunflower]

A few friends of mine HAVE had success with game cameras..my avatar came from one.  A white or gray hand washed out by the sun as she/he stuck her hand through a giant clump of vines and trees.  I'm saying white/gray because the owner had proof of one.  It's rare and not the first time the owner has used the technique. 

 

You as the observer have to be one step ahead it seems.

[Guest crabshack]

They are paid by those that have an interest in discrediting the subject.

 

I kid, I kid......well maybe not.

[David NC]

We will always have to deal with both sides of the coin.

[Rockape]

I myself think they do add value to the conversation, whether we like reading it or not.