It's time for a new sticky. Since the subject of deceptive posts has gained a bit of interest, here's a little piece about another type we see every week or two.

They usually take the form of posts that follow a specific pattern.

OP (usually a new account with no posting history) says he/she wants to learn more about the MRM.

Then OP proceeds to list a series of criticisms, which suggests they already knew a bit about the MRM.

Then the posts tend to go in one of two directions.

Either OP starts outright arguing with all the points made by members, and often putting them down. This, of course, reveals that OP had no intention to learn anything, but just wanted to start an argument.

In the other direction, OP tends not to respond at all, which suggests that the point was to deliver a little anti-MRA lecture before running off to do something else.

In both these patterns, there is something to be gained for the MRM. We get to practice polite and reasoned responses to criticism and critical inquiry - and we also demonstrate the reasonableness of our position to casual readers.

This latter point is very important, because the overwhelming majority of people here at any given time are readers, not vocal contributors. In many ways, they are the most important people on the subreddit, for it is they whose decisions will determine whether our movement grows or fails.