Neuro-Linguistic Counter-Programming: Storyotype

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.Terminology

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]369 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Heh I was around when it kicked off on /pol/. I can understand the confusion, it being nearly three and a half years later.
I don't really blame you for being skeptical in its current state. I've found a lot of value in the people that go there and a lot of the discussion. They also make very interesting connections that you can see before other people put them together. For about two years now, I could go and see what they were discussing, have a good grasp of the topic, go and briefly explain it to someone and then have them come back to me and say, "hey, I saw that thing you were talking about on the news. I had no idea what you meant, but it makes so much more sense now!"
Bear in mind, the people that go to QR are just /pol/acks and normies we reluctantly let hang out with us.
Oh, and Militaries have, for quite some time, utilized coded communications so that adversaries weren't sure about what they were discussing, as have plenty of other organizations.

The thing about provocation is most people don't see it as being very valuable. Oddly, that's how we got Trump elected though. This helps us explain why memes were potent - they helped people question their beliefs. What you do is you force them in to getting worked up over something that upsets them and then they think about it for a while, rationalizing in circles. The hope is that it gets through to some people and they eventually start questioning what they really know.
I get that it seems unconventional. It's weird, but it's pretty helpful if you can use it properly. This is why Trump was so successful, mind you.

I'd argue that your "low hanging fruit" has been rotting on the ground for years and is part of the toxicity corrupting our culture.

Yeah, I understand. I just don't feel righteous about it or anything. Calling people niggers is a great way to test sentiments of free speech, it's a great way to defend against people wanting to impede on rights and it, due to what was explained above, helps people deprogram a bit because it helps to detach the racial connotations with the word.
Or it used to, at least.
Besides, mocking and shaming are pretty useful socialization tactics.

I do see where you're coming from with all of this though. You have an interesting perspective and I'm glad you showed me the post, considering I think about these things a lot.

[–]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.