Actually what we see towards Nick from most of the people labelling him as a 'SISU lover (etc)' is a classic case of what we call 'scapegoating' within 'displaced aggression' with a large dollop of confirmation bias thrown in too. Nick's views are an outlier at one end of the spectrum but it is, ultimately, still the same SISU Out umbrella as everyone else - it is important to remember that. His own priority, under that umbrella, remains with the football aspect of CCFC above all, which in turn guides his reactions and responses to anything which potentially impacts his priority - the football matches. Most people at this end of the spectrum will have a deeper reason (that they might not even have realised) for ending up at this end of the spectrum e.g. the football is a bonding experience with a young child.
At the other end of the spectrum you have people whose priority is no longer the football but change of club ownership. Our downward spiral has impacted the matchday experience more severely for these people - budgets are slashed, relegations happen, the football becomes shit, their drinking buddies stop going, subsequently the atmosphere is poor and match days are no longer fun. These people naturally tend to be angrier about the situation as not only is their priority (ownership change) out of their direct control, the people responsible are equally untouchable - a faceless hedge fund, a voiceless woman who has been seen 3 times in 10 years, a chairman who antagonises but is rarely publicly available unless behind his security guards. This drives a feeling of helplessness which manifests as frustration and anger.
When a topic like a protest then comes up, that 'may' impact a game, one end of the spectrum is against it as it affects their priority, while the other side of the spectrum is all for it because it may contribute towards their desired priority of ownership change. Rational judgement becomes clouded at this point between the effect on the wider priority (ownership change) and an element of self-gain - the relief of frustration that is gained with the feeling of taking action (however futile or successful that action actually is).
For the other end of the spectrum there is risk involved e.g. the short term risk to the match itself and the loss of the bonding experience vs the longer term gain of ownership change that may positively impact that match/bonding experience. Natural survival instincts make humans generally risk cautious, most would rather settle for the meal in hand rather than gambling for 2 meals tomorrow. This then often leads to comments like 'at least we're doing something' but really it is just both sides protecting their self-gain from the situation.
This is where the displacement comes in - Nick's views are seen as contradictory to the other extreme, despite actually being under the same spectrum, to the point where he is seen as in opposition to the priority of ownership change. Because he is now perceived as the opposition, the anger felt towards the invisible SISU/Joy is then displaced onto the visible (online at least) Nick and he becomes the 'SISU' scapegoat/whipping boy. After several years of going round in the same circles, the confirmation bias kicks in too, exaggerating the situation further, as people selectively remember only the things that justify their feelings..... and now.....say a big hello to a fractured fanbase!
