you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I remember the early days of Q too. I didn't examine the releases, but for a while I followed several who followed closely. Their helpful contextual analysis were tremendously insightful.

Most importantly it was clear to discerning eyes that there were initially at least 3 "personalities" of Q in the early days as the psyop project evolved - each with different styles, motives, and goals. Anyone who can't see this is trapped in the blind faith Q delusion dogma.

You don't need Q or memes to understand why Trump was selected. He's popular be cause the shit choices offered with shitty media offering lots of information void of contextual understanding left a vast vacuum to gobble up a spoiled brat / TV game show host and a bunch of joke panels sarcastically resonating with moderately informed lowbrows as a new efficient mode of communication.

I agree that challenging humour can help break through firm beliefs to introduce skepticism, questions, and doubt. That's much different than challenging with offending content (slurs, porn, gore, etc).

It's obvious many folks use the taboo N word as a baseline test. IMO, you need a better test. The baseline tests that I respect are the taboo topics: 1) 9/11 was a globalist job, 2) the climate change scam, and 3) the great Holocaust exaggeration. If they can't even admit the first (or discuss it), then they're not informed and aware (or are held/holding back). The second was personally my greatest hurdle. The third was easier but more taboo to me, but once I dared to look at "Nazi-think" it became quickly obvious, and by that time it was clear for me that all of MSM is a lie.

IMO, it's better to use free speech to challenge taboo ideas than to call people taboo insults. Depends who you're mocking and shaming - always only punch up, and aim for their balls and vital organs.

Also, IMO, it's easy and lame to destroy, and conversely it's worth trying to examine the world, circumstances, and myself to figure out how things can be better and improved.

Q hopium is dangerous:
/s/conspiracy/comments/7e2j/i_react_to_a_q_pusher_reacting_to_my_video/

[–]369 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Most importantly it was clear to discerning eyes that there were initially at least 3 "personalities" of Q in the early days as the psyop project evolved - each with different styles, motives, and goals. Anyone who can't see this is trapped in the blind faith Q delusion dogma.

Yeah, I've heard people say this, but never understood why they said this. Maybe you mean the different tripcodes that were used. There are different types of messages, but I'm certain the pattern we're noticing there has to do with who the message is for.
As I said, communicating in code isn't new and it's not that difficult to spot. "That's just nonsense designed to confuse people" seems convenient to me.

offending people is bad

I don't see why anyone thinks this, frankly. I see a lot of value in "offending people" and I think anyone that wears their ego so blatantly deserves to have it challenged.
There's nothing you or anyone else could ever say or do that would offend me. The concept seems entirely foreign to me.
I'm not really even sure what the word means at this point. Does it mean "say a mean thing to me"? Does it mean "harm my honor"? It just feels like we're language policing.

Jordan Sather

Ouch. I get it - you were never very involved in discussion and probably never even stepped foot in QR, but "e-celebs" are not very well received on any chan, let alone /pol/ or QR. To be blunt, anyone that has any sort of personality associated with any communication they make about Q shouldn't receive any of your faith.

The problem I continue to find is that most who discuss anything related to Q don't exactly capture the sentiments that most anons harbor and they even more rarely understand what's really being said.
To add a little more: Q never needed Trump. It wasn't about Trump doing anything in particular and we largely just recognized Trump as a distraction, a very helpful one. Additionally, most agree Q is indeed a psyop. Unfortunately, they don't agree that all psyops are bad. See Cicada 3301 and its aftermath for instance. That's a pretty deep rabbit hole though.

Don't feel insulted by this or anything. I think most were purposefully lead astray when it came to this whole situation.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dark Web: Cicada 3301, an upcoming film inspired by the organization, is scheduled for release in 2021.

Chances are high it will be the usual tripe, but 'it is habbening'.

Speaking of personalities associated with communications about "Q", serialbrain2 is definitely king of b̵̸͙̅̽͡ͅă̶̸̝ͦ͊̿͋͞t̴͕͖͓̀s̩͙͖̋͛͟h̶̯̰̝̻̿̓͢i̵͓͙̱͚̎͟t̴͕͖͓̀ mountain.