I'm not really certain how to respond, because you're suggesting that "normies" are some labeled political class.
I only gave those questions do get an idea of what you define as a "normie" You keep trying to make it about what you claim others' think of a normie. Why are you unable to define a normie? If you can't define a normie, then you can't claim to understand how they think.
If I say yes, yes, yes, and yes, I'm describing someone further left than no, yes, no, no.
You are aware of the point I'm making. You claim "I know how normies think" but really you only know the group YOU define as a normie think. You know you can't claim to know how normies think when you won't even define what you think is "normal".
What is a "normal" person to you?
This isn't my label I'm using. I'm using the label of you guys to describe the "other", those who aren't Q.
No, you're not. You're using the label you slapped onto Q supporters when you generalized us. At least have the guts to recognize that.
Again, you keep hiding behind what you claim others think. You don't know what we think. How could you? You can't even define what you think. All your opinions are what you believe are other people's opinions.
How can anyone debate you when you don't make any actual definitions of your own? If I say you're wrong, you can just change your definition because you NEVER defined your own.
Exactly how they would answer a Facebook political quiz isn't really important, as long as they aren't looking at things through the Q perspective.
More evasion.
Put aside Q, and define a "normie".
Both people could hold beliefs that Q is nonsense, right?
I thought you claimed to know how normies think. Clearly you don't. Just because people don't understand or take an interest in something doesn't mean they'd regard it as nonsense. If that is your idea of what normies think, then I'd be very interested in you defining what a "normal" person is.
I'm not really going to die on the hill of some offhand comment I made and I'm not sure exactly what it is you want to debate here.
So you're gonna run away because you're scared to define it? You know once you define it you'll be stuck with YOUR definition. You know you can be debated and cornered on your logic.
Which means when you claimed to know what normies think, you did not mean "normies" or actually "normal" people.
Why don't you have an honest debate and define your terms first instead of hiding behind others?
Okay, look at my post history. I’ve been talking all day about a bunch of different things and I’ll blame any obtuseness on me multitasking too many conversations. I apologize I wasn’t giving you the debate you wanted, I’ve just been trying to find a polite stopping point for the night without making anyone feel ghosted. I wasn’t aware that particular comment was going to be worth discussing in such detail, but we can if you think it’s worth exploring.
I am happy to take a closer look at this again if you’d like, truly. I am just running out of time I don’t have scheduled for stuff at the moment. Can I take a brief rain check here?
I am happy to take a closer look at this again if you’d like, truly. I am just running out of time I don’t have scheduled for stuff at the moment. Can I take a brief rain check here?
Absolutely! That sounds good. See when you have time then. Good night!
Alright, u/zeitreise asked me to respond as well. I am quite busy at the moment and might not be able to do much follow-up.
I'm interested to see if your strategy of simply telling liberals that Trump is the only obvious solution to these current problems "with emotion" is effective. I'm not really sure how it differs from what has already been going on, but I'm up to learn. I have a pretty good track record at predicting how normies will react to the theories around here, so I'm absolutely up to hear how you'd approach this with a normie on the street.
This was in response to Zeitreise's advice about "latching onto emotion" and that an effective redpill would be reminding "the sheep that anything bad that happens can be corrected if they just beg for Trump back."
I have strong doubts that this strategy would work, because I think that Zeitreise, and others here, have a misunderstanding of how many, if not most, if not the vast majority, of anti-Trump people are actually operating. When they suggest strategies like this, it makes me think they've fallen for their own straw-man arguments.
So when Zeitreise approaches a "sheep" and says, "Anything bad that happens can be corrected if [you] just beg for Trump back."
The normie response will be an amused smile, because no, we don't actually see the world as easily divided up into good guys and bad guys, and that if the guy I voted for isn't great, then Trump must have been the correct choice.
I can even hate Joe Biden, want him out of office in 2024, and still not want Trump to run. Because it's not a binary choice. Even if Joe Biden shits himself on television, that's not going to convince any liberal that Trump was a better choice.
The response is, "Yeah, we wanted someone better, but the liberal platform is diverse, and Biden offends nobody. You want a better Democratic President, then give us a non-Trump candidate that doesn't terrify people enough to unite every Democrat (and some Republicans) into voting against him, even for someone as dull as Biden."
And then they will walk away.
Because many people here assume that the worse job that Biden does, the more appealing Trump will seem. And that is simply not the case. We think Trump did a terrible job, and if Biden also does a terrible job, then we'll vote for someone else, and that person will not be remotely close to Trump or anyone Trump is endorsing.
No liberals are questioning the vaccine because Trump is pushing it. They don't care what Trump thinks about the vaccine, only you guys do.
I'm sure plenty of liberals have poor feelings toward Biden. I myself am no fan of him or Clinton. But there are no anti-Trumpers rethinking their position on Trump based on Biden's performance. They'll just want a better Democrat.
We know that the media is often biased. We know that facts are sometimes reported before they're confirmed. We know that rich criminals exist and that they sometimes conspire.
We get all that. And we accept all that. We want that stuff fixed too. But knowing these facts doesn't automatically mean that your theories about Q and Trump are actually the truth of the situation. There are explanations for all of these things that have nothing to do with Trump and Q fighting a secret war against a pedophile cabal.
So yeah, I've been plugged into this community since its inception. I feel like I have a pretty good idea of how a "normie" doctor will react when you, say, bring in VAERS data to prove how dangerous the vaccine is. Because I know what the normie explanation for almost all Qincidences will probably be, and therefore am a pretty good preview of the defense you should expect to have to overcome with any redpill endeavor.
What's a normie? What's a sheep? It's apparently people who, either deliberately or by virtue of having never heard of Q, does not consider Q or his worldview to be a credible means of explaining or, more importantly, predicting reality. And therefore, people who will be unlikely to take your theories seriously in favor of ones that CAN consistently predict reality.
But maybe I'm wrong, and you guys really can manipulate non-Q people with strategies like reverse psychology and emphasizing Biden's blandness. You can try it in the real world and see if you win Trump any new voters, but I'm strongly doubting it. Trump is not winning favor from anti-Trumpers just because Biden is kind of dull.
I only gave those questions do get an idea of what you define as a "normie" You keep trying to make it about what you claim others' think of a normie. Why are you unable to define a normie? If you can't define a normie, then you can't claim to understand how they think.
You are aware of the point I'm making. You claim "I know how normies think" but really you only know the group YOU define as a normie think. You know you can't claim to know how normies think when you won't even define what you think is "normal".
What is a "normal" person to you?
No, you're not. You're using the label you slapped onto Q supporters when you generalized us. At least have the guts to recognize that.
Again, you keep hiding behind what you claim others think. You don't know what we think. How could you? You can't even define what you think. All your opinions are what you believe are other people's opinions.
How can anyone debate you when you don't make any actual definitions of your own? If I say you're wrong, you can just change your definition because you NEVER defined your own.
More evasion.
Put aside Q, and define a "normie".
I thought you claimed to know how normies think. Clearly you don't. Just because people don't understand or take an interest in something doesn't mean they'd regard it as nonsense. If that is your idea of what normies think, then I'd be very interested in you defining what a "normal" person is.
So you're gonna run away because you're scared to define it? You know once you define it you'll be stuck with YOUR definition. You know you can be debated and cornered on your logic.
Which means when you claimed to know what normies think, you did not mean "normies" or actually "normal" people.
Why don't you have an honest debate and define your terms first instead of hiding behind others?
Okay, look at my post history. I’ve been talking all day about a bunch of different things and I’ll blame any obtuseness on me multitasking too many conversations. I apologize I wasn’t giving you the debate you wanted, I’ve just been trying to find a polite stopping point for the night without making anyone feel ghosted. I wasn’t aware that particular comment was going to be worth discussing in such detail, but we can if you think it’s worth exploring.
I am happy to take a closer look at this again if you’d like, truly. I am just running out of time I don’t have scheduled for stuff at the moment. Can I take a brief rain check here?
Absolutely! That sounds good. See when you have time then. Good night!
Alright, u/zeitreise asked me to respond as well. I am quite busy at the moment and might not be able to do much follow-up.
This was in response to Zeitreise's advice about "latching onto emotion" and that an effective redpill would be reminding "the sheep that anything bad that happens can be corrected if they just beg for Trump back."
I have strong doubts that this strategy would work, because I think that Zeitreise, and others here, have a misunderstanding of how many, if not most, if not the vast majority, of anti-Trump people are actually operating. When they suggest strategies like this, it makes me think they've fallen for their own straw-man arguments.
So when Zeitreise approaches a "sheep" and says, "Anything bad that happens can be corrected if [you] just beg for Trump back."
The normie response will be an amused smile, because no, we don't actually see the world as easily divided up into good guys and bad guys, and that if the guy I voted for isn't great, then Trump must have been the correct choice.
I can even hate Joe Biden, want him out of office in 2024, and still not want Trump to run. Because it's not a binary choice. Even if Joe Biden shits himself on television, that's not going to convince any liberal that Trump was a better choice.
The response is, "Yeah, we wanted someone better, but the liberal platform is diverse, and Biden offends nobody. You want a better Democratic President, then give us a non-Trump candidate that doesn't terrify people enough to unite every Democrat (and some Republicans) into voting against him, even for someone as dull as Biden."
And then they will walk away.
Because many people here assume that the worse job that Biden does, the more appealing Trump will seem. And that is simply not the case. We think Trump did a terrible job, and if Biden also does a terrible job, then we'll vote for someone else, and that person will not be remotely close to Trump or anyone Trump is endorsing.
No liberals are questioning the vaccine because Trump is pushing it. They don't care what Trump thinks about the vaccine, only you guys do.
I'm sure plenty of liberals have poor feelings toward Biden. I myself am no fan of him or Clinton. But there are no anti-Trumpers rethinking their position on Trump based on Biden's performance. They'll just want a better Democrat.
We know that the media is often biased. We know that facts are sometimes reported before they're confirmed. We know that rich criminals exist and that they sometimes conspire.
We get all that. And we accept all that. We want that stuff fixed too. But knowing these facts doesn't automatically mean that your theories about Q and Trump are actually the truth of the situation. There are explanations for all of these things that have nothing to do with Trump and Q fighting a secret war against a pedophile cabal.
So yeah, I've been plugged into this community since its inception. I feel like I have a pretty good idea of how a "normie" doctor will react when you, say, bring in VAERS data to prove how dangerous the vaccine is. Because I know what the normie explanation for almost all Qincidences will probably be, and therefore am a pretty good preview of the defense you should expect to have to overcome with any redpill endeavor.
What's a normie? What's a sheep? It's apparently people who, either deliberately or by virtue of having never heard of Q, does not consider Q or his worldview to be a credible means of explaining or, more importantly, predicting reality. And therefore, people who will be unlikely to take your theories seriously in favor of ones that CAN consistently predict reality.
But maybe I'm wrong, and you guys really can manipulate non-Q people with strategies like reverse psychology and emphasizing Biden's blandness. You can try it in the real world and see if you win Trump any new voters, but I'm strongly doubting it. Trump is not winning favor from anti-Trumpers just because Biden is kind of dull.