You are claiming you have a good track record, but that is only by your definition of one. Our definition may be different. To have that debate we need to first be clear on what we're defining as a "normie".
It would be like claiming "I understand how women think" but then you only mean women from one group who live in the wealthy suburbs of San Francisco area while we might mean women in deep red stats.
You might think of a normie by your definition of a centrist, but we would term your type of normie as strongly left-leaning and not a "normie" at all.
I'm asking you to define it in your own words. I'm not asking how you think "normies" here are defined. You claimed you are a good prognosticator of how "normies" think. So I want to know what you mean by a "normie". What is your idea of a typical normie?
Is a normie pro-vax to you? Are they pro-mask to you? Do they agree with gay marriage? Do they agree with transgender therapy for children? Do they agree with preferred pronouns?
I'm using it in the most general sense, which is, "what the world outside of Q thinks."
We can't have a debate until you define the term. You claimed that you were good at predicting how normies will react, but you did not define your idea of a normie.
Now you are saying that anyone who doesn't follow Q is a normie. So Trump-loving patriots who don't agree with transgender therapy are "normies" by your definition if they don't follow Q? (You do know the majority of Trump voters don't follow Q or even know much about it, don't you?)
You've basically said by your current position that majority of Trump supporters are normies.
I am asking what, in your opinion, is a "normie".
Do you think normies agree with transgender therapy and preferred gender pronouns? (Yes or no?)
Do you think normies agree with gay marriage?
Do you think normies are pro-vax?
Do you think normies are pro-mask?
I think you know very well the point I'm making. Just answer the questions above with yes or no. It's real simple.
So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.
What is your definition of a "normie"?
You are claiming you have a good track record, but that is only by your definition of one. Our definition may be different. To have that debate we need to first be clear on what we're defining as a "normie".
It would be like claiming "I understand how women think" but then you only mean women from one group who live in the wealthy suburbs of San Francisco area while we might mean women in deep red stats.
You might think of a normie by your definition of a centrist, but we would term your type of normie as strongly left-leaning and not a "normie" at all.
So please specify what you mean by "normie".
Well, if you ask most people around here, I'd be considered one, so I guess that's something.
I'm asking you to define it in your own words. I'm not asking how you think "normies" here are defined. You claimed you are a good prognosticator of how "normies" think. So I want to know what you mean by a "normie". What is your idea of a typical normie?
Is a normie pro-vax to you? Are they pro-mask to you? Do they agree with gay marriage? Do they agree with transgender therapy for children? Do they agree with preferred pronouns?
Define your idea of a normie.
I'm using it in the most general sense, which is, "what the world outside of Q thinks." Which is typically the way it's used around here.
If I knew what point you were trying to make, I may be able to give you an answer more conducive to whatever conversation we're having right now.
We can't have a debate until you define the term. You claimed that you were good at predicting how normies will react, but you did not define your idea of a normie.
Now you are saying that anyone who doesn't follow Q is a normie. So Trump-loving patriots who don't agree with transgender therapy are "normies" by your definition if they don't follow Q? (You do know the majority of Trump voters don't follow Q or even know much about it, don't you?)
You've basically said by your current position that majority of Trump supporters are normies.
I am asking what, in your opinion, is a "normie".
Do you think normies agree with transgender therapy and preferred gender pronouns? (Yes or no?)
Do you think normies agree with gay marriage?
Do you think normies are pro-vax?
Do you think normies are pro-mask?
I think you know very well the point I'm making. Just answer the questions above with yes or no. It's real simple.
So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.