That’s great, but I’m not sure I know what it means. For example:
they appear to have been placed expressly to antagonize
Is this from the POV of the person who is/might be antagonized, or are we reading intent into the poster, or is there some independent scale?
For example, suppose a Jordan Peterson cultist posts something that at least looks like an argument, with the conclusion “therefore we are lobsters.” Person A posts, “your argument is crap” (and nothing else). At the same time person B posts an image of someone rolling their eyes (and nothing else). To me these look like the same post. I gather from your second sentence that you would treat them the same, but then what? The people who posted them might have simply wanted to point out that the argument was crap, or might have wanted to annoy Lobster Man, or might have wanted to amuse other BB readers, or something else. In any of these cases it is a stretch to say that they add to the conversation, since (a) they seem possibly designed to simply shut it down, and (b) even if not they are only counterarguments in the sense of the famous Python sketch. (My own reaction is usually to find that the post adds to the conversation if I disagree with Mr. Lobster, but possibly feels like goading otherwise.)
Alternately, Lobster Man might reasonably feel attacked, does that mean he gets to complain that the posts are there to antagonize?
If it sounds like I’m expecting a particular answer here, or trying to force one, I’m really not. Speaking as a professional logician, I don’t trust logic in these situations, and think working through scenarios is more useful than stating axioms.
