Is "two more weeks" a valid argument? What debate is there to be had here? I have no doubt this will take much longer than two weeks, but It is happening. I see it every day.
Dooming isnt opposing debate. Argue why you think speculation isnt true. Give counter ideas. Dooming with negative comments and not ideas, isnt productive to Q research.
I am talking about "ideas expressed in earnest". How hard is that to understand? If someone provides evidence that may be something we don't want to hear, isn't that something that should be debated? If someone gives an argument for something, and it is expressed in earnest, even if it isn't something "nice and pretty and confirmation biasy" is that something that should be censored or debated?
Let's look at the possible outcomes. What will censorship do for anyone involved? I assert it can only cause harm; it can only be a negative. No one benefits from such censorship. Try to find me a benefit, because I struggle to come up with one. There are fewer posts? I mean, meh. We aren't talking about that many posts engaged in earnest with opposing views.
On the other hand, what are the potentials if it is debated? People can learn things. Even if the "doomer" OP (who is engaging honestly) isn't convinced, any others that read the debate will likely learn something important (assuming any real debate was had). If no one decides to engage in debate on the other hand, the community self-censors and the result is the same as the best case scenario in censorship, except no harm was done.
Is "two more weeks" a valid argument? What debate is there to be had here? I have no doubt this will take much longer than two weeks, but It is happening. I see it every day.
Dooming isnt opposing debate. Argue why you think speculation isnt true. Give counter ideas. Dooming with negative comments and not ideas, isnt productive to Q research.
I am talking about "ideas expressed in earnest". How hard is that to understand? If someone provides evidence that may be something we don't want to hear, isn't that something that should be debated? If someone gives an argument for something, and it is expressed in earnest, even if it isn't something "nice and pretty and confirmation biasy" is that something that should be censored or debated?
Let's look at the possible outcomes. What will censorship do for anyone involved? I assert it can only cause harm; it can only be a negative. No one benefits from such censorship. Try to find me a benefit, because I struggle to come up with one. There are fewer posts? I mean, meh. We aren't talking about that many posts engaged in earnest with opposing views.
On the other hand, what are the potentials if it is debated? People can learn things. Even if the "doomer" OP (who is engaging honestly) isn't convinced, any others that read the debate will likely learn something important (assuming any real debate was had). If no one decides to engage in debate on the other hand, the community self-censors and the result is the same as the best case scenario in censorship, except no harm was done.