Connections go two ways. Talking about Q and Trump: Consider that Trump is the president, and Q is just some random poster on an anonymous internet forum. From this standpoint, it is not noteworthy at all whenever Q connects himself to Trump, as he does a lot. However if Trump were to connect himself to Q, that would be a big deal. And it has happened, quite a lot, for example, in the OP. Q’s credibility is built entirely on “coincidences” like this.
Imagine you’re a kid on a playground and you hear someone say “my uncle works at Nintendo and he says …” That’s not notable, some kids will say anything for attention. But if some employee at Nintendo were to share a picture of his extended family and that kid is there, suddenly the kid has a lot more credibility, even though the uncle didn’t tell you anything directly about the company’s plans.
I mean no disrespect, but over what general time period did you do that?
I’m curious what you’ll find if you were to shop around for current-day prices and add up the costs of the lifestyle you lived (house/rent, car, food, taxes, etc.). Then compare to what a “modest salary” means today.
Many people have done this exercise and come to the conclusion that it’s a lot more difficult now than it was in the past to live a “normal life”. This is by design, of course.
It’s not even necessarily grammar that (most of them) are trying to change. It’s worse, they‘re trying to change how we perceive and categorize all people. All of them either don’t realize, or don’t care about, why we group men and women into these categories based on biology and nothing else. They’re trying to swap biology out for superficial/useless things like personal expression or whatever they’re calling it, because imposing their fantasies on the world is the only thing they care about.
That connection in the top left is a huuuuge stretch. And I’m not even sure what’s being pointed out on the right half of the page.
The system I follow when assessing whether there’s a genuine symbolic connection is to compare the number and significance of each naturally shared element to the number and significance of viewer-introduced changes/additions needed to get from one picture to the other.
Similarities: curve, pointed bit. (both very common things to have.) Changes/additions: splitting the arrow into its point/head and its curve. Rotating the curve. Triplicating the curve. Removing the design elements on the curve- but keeping the halfway mark.
I could make a stick figure with the same number of arbitrary manipulations you used to get to the candlestick thing. This is not a significant symbolic connection. Unless you’re trying to say all semicircles are evil? In which case, please seek help.
For most people, the primary reason for loyalty to any political party or ideology is a tribal mentality. There’s a sense of commitment to one’s peers, and peer pressure is a very real influence. But this alone isn’t enough to sustain the group, there has to be some other draw, to both bring new people in, and remind them to not break out. And that’s where things like envy and laziness come into the picture. Another common one is “this group supports me doing whateeevvver I want”. I wouldn’t say that’s their whole motivation, it only takes a little bit of envy, and a social structure to validate and encourage it.
They’re angry because their tribe is at war, and the promises they’ve been tempted with are at stake.
If gender isn’t sex, then “gender” should be completely irrelevant for every single thing that matters. Their whole movement relies on the confusion most people have about the “new meanings” of words, and while they’re confused, these people live out their sick fantasies to the detriment of everyone around them.
“Oh it’s women’s sports, that must be referring to gender. I’m a woman, let me play” breaks an opponent’s skull
This makes a lot of sense. When good people lack vigilance, evil is able to advance under their noses, but only steadily, at a snail’s pace. Any faster and alarms would go off.
Warp Speed pressured them to push their luck and trigger those alarms.
It’s always a gamble to put so much power into one person. But there are are advantages. Individuals move faster and more decisively than a corrupt bureaucracy. I’m inclined to think that from these initial results, his intentions are good. Of course the big question is whether he’ll do the noble thing and transition away from power eventually before either he gives in to temptation or someone worse takes his place.