I wrote this as a comment on another thread, but thought it important enough to share as its own post.
For those of you who so vehemently oppose tick-tocking, I think you should consider that you are failing to grasp the importance of the exact mechanism you're decrying. Bolstering faith is necessary as we wait for the event of culmination (the "singularity") to occur. If enough people stop believing, then the event, when it occurs will have no meaning. If the majority of people have given up hope and embraced the inevitability of evil, then what point is revival? What would we be reviving?
Datefagging serves a real purpose, even if not scientifically quantifiable in its value. It reminds us to get our houses in order, because the end date could be right around the corner. It encourages us to speak up and be forthright with our beliefs, because soon the cavalry will be coming. And the more of us who speak up, the more we realize we're not alone. Belief in the inevitability of winning is literally the way movements form, it transforms belief into reality.
If you don't believe the singularity is going to occur, then it really is a question of "why are you here?" because that's exactly what the Q mythos is about. If you want to blackpill people as a selfish means toward hedging your bets, so that IF the singularity event never occurs you can proudly proclaim "see, I told you so!", then you're not really providing any value to the cause.
It is the same concept as religious faith. If you succumb to the belief that evil winning is inevitable, then you no longer have any rational justification not to join in. That's why faith is the highest virtue. It is the ability to hold on to "good" even in the face of overwhelming odds.
There is clearly miscommunication on both sides then, and I apologize if I mischaracterized your post, that wasn't my intention.
My point was that participating on those platforms is seen by some as supporting the companies. You see it as fighting propaganda where it is occurring, which is fine, but others see it as a less productive way to do so, which is also fine.
This I believe I understood, and disagreed with your assertion. I don't believe half-truths are beneficial (have value), and would argue they are more harmful than untruths. (Half truth, in this case, that the event is going to happen, and the other half being the time at which it occurs.) I would argue the reason Christians continue to believe in the interpretation of an "end of times" regardless of the false prophets and false dates, is because most of them know that man will never be able to predict the date, and so they don't give into such a false hope to begin with. Many however, who do give into false hope, end up losing what little hope they had because they couldn't separate the truth from the untruth, and so when half of it turned out to be untrue, they turned from the other half as well. This is not always the case, but is certainly a common occurrence.
This was perhaps my fault then for misunderstanding your original post. I am glad we see eye-to-eye on that.
Thank you, and I still think we agree on pretty much everything. Let me address your one remaining concern:
"I don't believe half-truths are beneficial (have value), and would argue they are more harmful than untruths. (Half truth, in this case, that the event is going to happen, and the other half being the time at which it occurs.)"
I think this is more because of how you are dividing the "truth" into a half-truth. If the "datefag" in question was ONLY providing a predictive date without any context as to "why" they think something will occur on that date, then you would be correct. The value I am talking about is that most of the time when someone "datefags" they do so for a reason, and they lay out their case for WHY they think it will happen on a certain date. They draw connections between events that are occurring in the world and Q posts. So the value they are providing is that even though the connections they identify may not actually culminate in the event occurring, they still may have provided a useful nugget of information within their thought process which helps us to build out further our understanding of the Q posts.
So for instance, if someone sees an article about a significant news event occurring in Zimbabwe, and they conclude that it might be tied to a Q post, and then they derive a false notion that it means X thing will occur on X day, then they may have been wrong about their prediction, but the event in Zimbabwe might still be an important event that is connected in some way, that we would not have otherwise known about unless they had randomly encountered it and drawn the connection.
This is exactly the mechanism by which God asserts that Satan serves God's will with his lies. Lies only serve to make the truth shine brighter. They may hold in the short term, but eventually they only make the truth easier to see.
Hell, you can see this with the media right now. For years, most of us believed them at least to be honest TO SOME DEGREE, but now that we've been exposed to the truth, we understand that almost always when you read the news, you can take it to mean the exact opposite of the point they're trying to convey. Their predictability in lying helps us to see the truth...