Why do two people on the internet with same opinions get accused of being dupes?

[Bullet Sniper]

I am just going to relay what I've seen. Why is it on an internet forum, when one person says an opinion or any statement, true or false, that everyone disagrees with and gets mocked and flamed for it, thread after thread. But when someone else comes in and defends or agrees with the person that the crowd is arguing against, especially when the crowd really REALLY hates him, or when that person argues for the same opinion as the other guy, why is that someone else is automatically assumed to be a mere "dupe", "sockpuppet", or "alternate account" of the person that random guy is defending as soon as he joins the fray? Why is it people are so quick to leap to the conclusion that the person defending the guy being argued against by everyone is one and the same with him? And why is it even though someone who's not part of the debate try to provide a reasonable explanation and evidential proof that they are two different people, the accuser (be it one or many) adamantly denies it and continues to believe they're the same person, despite any hard evidence against the contrary?

[codystarbuck]

I am just going to relay what I've seen. Why is it on an internet forum, when one person says an opinion or any statement, true or false, that everyone disagrees with and gets mocked and flamed for it, thread after thread. But when someone else comes in and defends or agrees with the person that the crowd is arguing against, especially when the crowd really REALLY hates him, or when that person argues for the same opinion as the other guy, why is that someone else is automatically assumed to be a mere "dupe", "sockpuppet", or "alternate account" of the person that random guy is defending as soon as he joins the fray? Why is it people are so quick to leap to the conclusion that the person defending the guy being argued against by everyone is one and the same with him? And why is it even though someone who's not part of the debate try to provide a reasonable explanation and evidential proof that they are two different people, the accuser (be it one or many) adamantly denies it and continues to believe they're the same person, despite any hard evidence against the contrary?

Because debate is rarely logical and usually travels on emotion. It depends on the debate though. I've seen people willing to stand on principle while condemned by the crowd, such as people who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq. Then, I've see people utter ignorant, racist things and be condemned, and then act like they are a martyr against political correctness. A lot depends on the original statements, where they present a coherent and reasoned argument, right or wrong, or just treads in incendiary comments. The former still elicits knee-jerk reactions, the latter encourages them.

The biggest thing is that anonymity and distance breeds behavior that wouldn't happen, if there were immediate consequences.. Some people are really bold when they aren't face to face with an opponent; not brave, just bold. It is the rare person who will stand up to a crowd and challenge their belief, in person.

[LordMikel]

Think of it like this.

Example "Wolverine should wear a pink tutu when fighting."
Everyone flames the stupidness of that idea.

Finally there is a person who says, "Wolverine should wear a pink tutu." But then you look at the number of posts that person has done and the number is 1 or very low. I would immediately think "dupe."

Now I have seen where a person on a forum posted something stupid, and two of her friends joined the forum to help defend her. I knew there were three of them, cause I knew them all, but anyone else, it looked like the person created two new accounts to help defend her position.

Classic saying, "If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."

[Alan2099]

So ideas are just so stupid that it's hard to believe more than one person can come up with them.

[LordMikel]

So ideas are just so stupid that it's hard to believe more than one person can come up with them.

Yes, couldn't have said it better. Some ideas are that stupid, that it is shocking to think two people would both agree.

[Carabas]

And here I thought a dupe is a gullible person...

This is the first time I have seen the term dupe equated with sockpuppet.

[numberthirty]

And here I thought a dupe is a gullible person...

This is the first time I have seen the term dupe equated with sockpuppet.

Short for "Duplicate". That would be my guess.

[Paradox]

Carabas will consider the source:

And here I thought a dupe is a gullible person...

This is the first time I have seen the term dupe equated with sockpuppet.

Of course, there's always the outside chance that, Sniper being Sniper, he simply misunderstood someone else using it. Crap shoot either way.

I prefer "patsy", anyway.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Bullet Sniper, it's because that **** happens all the time. Trolls, idiots and scammers have no moral compunction in creating a second account to back themselves up and often do.

[Bullet Sniper]

Guys I was asking why does anyone who defends the opinion of the person being hated or argued against, get accused by at least one person of being the guy's alt account even if it's fairly obvious to everyone else, they're two different people and differ from each other in other ways? Not why do people say bad things or why they are brave enough to say things on the Internet.

[Bullet Sniper]

Of course, there's always the outside chance that, Sniper being Sniper, he simply misunderstood someone else using it. Crap shoot either way.

I prefer "patsy", anyway.

In case you are not to update with other slightly lesser known Internet slang, dupe means an alternate account lol.

[Paradox]

I first ran into the term that way on an MMO board (people are dupin rares!), but this is the first I've heard it used for "sock puppet".

Bullet Sniper seeks sense out of it:

Guys I was asking why does anyone who defends the opinion of the person being hated or argued against, get accused by at least one person of being the guy's alt account even if it's fairly obvious to everyone else, they're two different people and differ from each other in other ways? Not why do people say bad things or why they are brave enough to say things on the Internet.

Like the answer to so many of your questions, the answer is simply that a lot of people are stupid, and others are just dicks.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Guys I was asking why does anyone who defends the opinion of the person being hated or argued against, get accused by at least one person of being the guy's alt account even if it's fairly obvious to everyone else, they're two different people and differ from each other in other ways? Not why do people say bad things or why they are brave enough to say things on the Internet.

In my experience this only happens if it's a relatively new user. If a new user showed up and started echoing your opinions in a thread, I'd assume they were a sock puppet.

[Mark Thrust]

Guys I was asking why does anyone who defends the opinion of the person being hated or argued against, get accused by at least one person of being the guy's alt account even if it's fairly obvious to everyone else, they're two different people and differ from each other in other ways? Not why do people say bad things or why they are brave enough to say things on the Internet.

I guess it depends if the person who said the statement only said it in an echo chamber.

[The Negative Zone]

Classic saying, "If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."

Or a shape shifting alien!