When people agree for the wrong reasons
I think the role that ambiguity plays in Reddit comment sections has been underexamined.
I think huge masses of people upvote vague comments because they strike a venn diagram of a different possible meanings, all of which are incompatible with each other, but which collectively, are salient to a large group of people.
I've attached this Reddit thread as an example. It's either super obvious or not obvious that Lakers fans would come out to boo Clippers
When people agree for the wrong reasons
The two ways this thread could be interpreted are (1) Lakers fans are obviously going to be out and booing a Clippers championship parade and (2) they obviously aren't.
And amazingly, there are comments in reply that justify both perceptions, by pointing out that the site of the parade would be Lakers ground zero, which could both imply that Lakers fans would not be going out of their way to be present at the parade, AND (1/2)
When people agree for the wrong reasons
(2/2) AND that Lakers fans clearly WILL be there and boos should be expected, because the parade will be marching right through the center of Lakers fan territory.
I'd be interested in some of the theory of misinformation/online communication that makes sense of this idea that comments that rise to the top are ones that are capable of sustaining incompatible meetings. They are full of hedged bets, and multiple meanings.
When people agree for the wrong reasons
It's kind of like that thing about Schrodinger's Douchebag: an incredibly offensive statement was either sincerely intended or 'obviously' a joke, depending on how people react to it.
And that's the value of a joke that entertains a version of reality favored by the person who tells the joke. They get to put forward an image of a world they want to bring into existence, make the impression more familiar. But it's just a joke, so criticism misses the point
