I don’t know if I can ask this without people getting mad, but let me try.
Have any of you research anons who dig into the microscopic details of every situation investigated this one for tomfoolery?
A liberal Q movement might suggest this worked out all too perfectly. Right after a major school shooting with an AR-15, we see another attempted shooting that was unceremoniously stopped by a “good guy with a gun?”
It doesn’t seem like an awfully convenient narrative?
A dude who owns an AR-15 is apparently so bad at shooting it that he can fire into a crowd and not hit anyone? Then be killed by a convenient passerby?
And he was so easy to set off that asking him to slow down for children in the street was enough to make him homicidal?
You’re going to accept the news narrative that easily?
What if the shooter was MKUltra’d by conservative bad guys and made to do this so he could be taken down and set the narrative that AR-15’s aren’t scary and every civilian should be packing heat? What if he was planted there and the woman was expecting him?
Because this was just a movie being played out?
Why isn’t every detail of this case being analyzed by Q people for theater trickery? Why don’t I see the same level of analysis here by Q people making sure that your side isn’t also (or the only ones) pulling dirty tricks and false flags?
You ask why this isn’t in the news. Fair question. Equally fair: why will this thread likely be forgotten by the end of the day here on the boards when there is such a wealth of information here about a potential conservative murder conspiracy behind this story?
Zetriese is right on this one ogre. Conservatives don't have any institutional power. I understand you're trying to play "Devils advocate", here but in no way shape or form is the establishment interested in spreading conservative, pro gun values across the cultural sphere.
This is a silly question, akin to asking, "why do you guys get suspicious at Black Lives Matter for buying themselves multiple million dollar homes, but not get suspicious at those few KKK members who bought themselves million dollar homes?"
It all comes down to the institutional power and desired outflow of narratives. We will not be gaslighted.
It’s not so much that I’m trying to play devil’s advocate as I am trying to demonstrate the challenges I sometimes have to face in understanding Q stuff when discussing it. For instance:
I understand you're trying to play "Devils advocate", here but in no way shape or form is the establishment interested in spreading conservative, pro gun values across the cultural sphere.
That goes counter to the notion that there is a silent majority of conservatives or any sort of secret group like Q working behind the scenes right now.
Maybe it’s not the establishment that is spreading the message.
You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way.
I’m asking you to abstain from that conclusion and analyze this situation as if you didn’t believe that Q was necessarily the good guy/group that everyone here assumes.
You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag. So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?
"You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way."
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
"You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag."
Not every story in general, but yes definitely the ones that are skewed in such a way to push tighter gun control. I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
"So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?"
What on earth is the "Q narrative"? And how would false flags be used to advance it? This is a strangely thought out proposition so I would ask you to elaborate on the specifics of such a thing.
Lastly I'll reiterate, it's entirely possible that Q (person or persons) had negative intentions. Same with Donald Trump. I trust no man but Jesus christ.
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys thought AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
I don’t know if I can ask this without people getting mad, but let me try.
Have any of you research anons who dig into the microscopic details of every situation investigated this one for tomfoolery?
A liberal Q movement might suggest this worked out all too perfectly. Right after a major school shooting with an AR-15, we see another attempted shooting that was unceremoniously stopped by a “good guy with a gun?”
It doesn’t seem like an awfully convenient narrative?
A dude who owns an AR-15 is apparently so bad at shooting it that he can fire into a crowd and not hit anyone? Then be killed by a convenient passerby?
And he was so easy to set off that asking him to slow down for children in the street was enough to make him homicidal?
You’re going to accept the news narrative that easily?
What if the shooter was MKUltra’d by conservative bad guys and made to do this so he could be taken down and set the narrative that AR-15’s aren’t scary and every civilian should be packing heat? What if he was planted there and the woman was expecting him?
Because this was just a movie being played out?
Why isn’t every detail of this case being analyzed by Q people for theater trickery? Why don’t I see the same level of analysis here by Q people making sure that your side isn’t also (or the only ones) pulling dirty tricks and false flags?
You ask why this isn’t in the news. Fair question. Equally fair: why will this thread likely be forgotten by the end of the day here on the boards when there is such a wealth of information here about a potential conservative murder conspiracy behind this story?
Zetriese is right on this one ogre. Conservatives don't have any institutional power. I understand you're trying to play "Devils advocate", here but in no way shape or form is the establishment interested in spreading conservative, pro gun values across the cultural sphere.
This is a silly question, akin to asking, "why do you guys get suspicious at Black Lives Matter for buying themselves multiple million dollar homes, but not get suspicious at those few KKK members who bought themselves million dollar homes?"
It all comes down to the institutional power and desired outflow of narratives. We will not be gaslighted.
It’s not so much that I’m trying to play devil’s advocate as I am trying to demonstrate the challenges I sometimes have to face in understanding Q stuff when discussing it. For instance:
That goes counter to the notion that there is a silent majority of conservatives or any sort of secret group like Q working behind the scenes right now.
Maybe it’s not the establishment that is spreading the message.
You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way.
I’m asking you to abstain from that conclusion and analyze this situation as if you didn’t believe that Q was necessarily the good guy/group that everyone here assumes.
You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag. So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?
That’s an honest question, truly.
"You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way."
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
"You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag."
Not every story in general, but yes definitely the ones that are skewed in such a way to push tighter gun control. I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
"So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?"
What on earth is the "Q narrative"? And how would false flags be used to advance it? This is a strangely thought out proposition so I would ask you to elaborate on the specifics of such a thing.
Lastly I'll reiterate, it's entirely possible that Q (person or persons) had negative intentions. Same with Donald Trump. I trust no man but Jesus christ.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)