Well, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of the Q drops. If anything, I think the point was to sow complete distrust of ALL public figures and politicians. To assume they’re all guilty until proven innocent. Simply as a countermeasure to government trust and complacency.
Regardless, all of our discrimination does not take place in a court room. When I walk into a car dealership, I can decide pretty quickly if I’m talking to an honest person or a liar, without having evidence that would be admissible in court to prove that to be the case.
Evidence is whatever proves to the individual, based on their own experiences and biases, that a thing is more likely to be true than not. To pretend we can’t assert anything without undeniable proof is anti-free-speech.
Private individuals can assert whatever they like about a public figure, and are not subject to defamation suits. There are countless examples of case law that hold this up - entering the political ring makes you vulnerable to just about any claim anyone wants to make.
It also wouldn’t make any sense if the indictments were for defamation, that a good portion of the people did turn out to be pedophiles, which so far, has been the case.
To try to defend your position any further than the logical conclusion of “use discernment, and be more aware of your accusations and their impact” would lead me to conclude you are intentionally trying to lead people away from free thinking, and therefore truth.
Well, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of the Q drops. If anything, I think the point was to sow complete distrust of ALL public figures and politicians. To assume they’re all guilty until proven innocent. Simply as a countermeasure to government trust and complacency.
Regardless, all of our discrimination does not take place in a court room. When I walk into a car dealership, I can decide pretty quickly if I’m talking to an honest person or a liar, without having evidence that would be admissible in court to prove that to be the case.
Evidence is whatever proves to the individual, based on their own experiences and biases, that a thing is more likely to be true than not. To pretend we can’t assert anything without undeniable proof is anti-free-speech.
Private individuals can assert whatever they like about a public figure, and are not subject to defamation suits. There are countless examples of case law that hold this up - entering the political ring makes you vulnerable to just about any claim anyone wants to make.
It also wouldn’t make any sense if the indictments were for defamation, that a good portion of the people did turn out to be pedophiles, which so far, has been the case.
To try to defend your position any further than the logical conclusion of “use discernment, and be more aware of your accusations and their impact” would lead me to conclude you are intentionally trying to lead people away from free thinking, and therefore truth.