I have been here since the election. With all the weirdness of the posting and oddities surrounding the return. I am skeptical. I don't doubt the old Q stuff at all, but I think its a good thing to be skeptical when things seem off. When proof's roll in, it feels much better to be able to debunk criticisms with logic, rather than emotion.
I want these to be real but I also don't want to be blindly trust things. So unfortunately I do have a "old Q" and "new Q" category until my mind can decide what is what.
Right, when people call it a cult, I laugh because most conversation's here involve deciphering information and articles and trying to piece together a bigger picture of event's. Even if Q didn't exist I still like this kind of research and find it very eye opening what can be deciphered when looking at things on a larger scale.
When you blindly trust, then what are people suppose to think when someone calls you a cult member and your response is also cult like? That's not really how you change peoples minds.
Exactly. And honestly it would be very un-Q of us to fully believe this is the OG Q posting without doing any digging or research. It intrinsically goes against everything Q was teaching us. Verify everything, trust nothing, dig for yourself. Edit: well except trusting God and the plan, but that's about far as trust goes in relation to Q
Kind of wish this phrase would disappear. “Trust but verify” isn’t a thing.
The definition of trust is not having to verify things all the time. If you’re verifying constantly, you don’t trust it. By definition.
When was the last time you had someone taste-test a meal for poison when it was provided by your spouse?
When was the last time you asked your boss to verify their identity so that you knew you weren’t working for a fraud?
When was the last time you cautiously approached the old family dog that has never bitten anyone in his life?
Are you not verifying the things you trust in your life?
The only phrase that makes sense is “verify, then trust.” THAT is how you avoid ending up in a cult mindset. Once you start trusting people promoting the thing you’re studying, you’re already losing your ability to research it properly.
I definitely see both perspectives here's. Of course this is now getting in the area of semantics.
It might be easier to look into at the context its used.
In my opinion I look at trust, but verify more like taking a matter seriously but still being open to new information that could prove otherwise.
Like if someone is alleges sexual assault on someone else. You can take the accusation seriously while still wanting proof. Of course this is a different matter but I think there are similarities in how to process new information.
In this case I am not throwing out any of the statements made by Q I am just simply filing them away until something validates them. I like to remain open minded to all new information and opinions on it. It prevents getting too emotionally attached to a cause and saves headache long run imo.
This phrase was used to describe to Reagan how he should interact with the Soviets regarding nuclear power.
These are the same Soviets (historically) that are responsible for Operation Trust, BTW, and that very much relied on trusting people being fooled into thinking they were verifying. Which is how they were able to capture Reilly and Savinkov.
It might be good advice when dealing with public-facing international politics against an equal-level nuclear power.
Not really good advice for a research site. At all.
I get what your saying. I think we will find out in time. I have no problem being patient and having things proven as it comes. After all many Q posts are also not brought to light til years later!.
As far as what a Fake Q's motives would be, that is up in the air.
But in my mind lets say I hypothetically had access to Q's account and I wanted to play games on it.
My first goal would be to establish trust. Even if I believed Hutchinson's story I absolutely would pretend not. Any real agenda or change of direction would need to happen slowly and subtlety to avoid people catching on. If your a bad actor and your any good at it, I feel like you would put in the work to establish trust.
Not saying that's what is happening. But motives is something that very hard to really know and so I can't go off of that as a reason to trust alone. Maybe as a overall trend or on a checklist but undeniable proofs are unfortunately the only real way to verify 100%.
I have been here since the election. With all the weirdness of the posting and oddities surrounding the return. I am skeptical. I don't doubt the old Q stuff at all, but I think its a good thing to be skeptical when things seem off. When proof's roll in, it feels much better to be able to debunk criticisms with logic, rather than emotion.
I want these to be real but I also don't want to be blindly trust things. So unfortunately I do have a "old Q" and "new Q" category until my mind can decide what is what.
Right, when people call it a cult, I laugh because most conversation's here involve deciphering information and articles and trying to piece together a bigger picture of event's. Even if Q didn't exist I still like this kind of research and find it very eye opening what can be deciphered when looking at things on a larger scale.
When you blindly trust, then what are people suppose to think when someone calls you a cult member and your response is also cult like? That's not really how you change peoples minds.
Exactly. And honestly it would be very un-Q of us to fully believe this is the OG Q posting without doing any digging or research. It intrinsically goes against everything Q was teaching us. Verify everything, trust nothing, dig for yourself. Edit: well except trusting God and the plan, but that's about far as trust goes in relation to Q
Kind of wish this phrase would disappear. “Trust but verify” isn’t a thing.
The definition of trust is not having to verify things all the time. If you’re verifying constantly, you don’t trust it. By definition.
When was the last time you had someone taste-test a meal for poison when it was provided by your spouse?
When was the last time you asked your boss to verify their identity so that you knew you weren’t working for a fraud?
When was the last time you cautiously approached the old family dog that has never bitten anyone in his life?
Are you not verifying the things you trust in your life?
The only phrase that makes sense is “verify, then trust.” THAT is how you avoid ending up in a cult mindset. Once you start trusting people promoting the thing you’re studying, you’re already losing your ability to research it properly.
I definitely see both perspectives here's. Of course this is now getting in the area of semantics.
It might be easier to look into at the context its used.
In my opinion I look at trust, but verify more like taking a matter seriously but still being open to new information that could prove otherwise.
Like if someone is alleges sexual assault on someone else. You can take the accusation seriously while still wanting proof. Of course this is a different matter but I think there are similarities in how to process new information.
In this case I am not throwing out any of the statements made by Q I am just simply filing them away until something validates them. I like to remain open minded to all new information and opinions on it. It prevents getting too emotionally attached to a cause and saves headache long run imo.
This phrase was used to describe to Reagan how he should interact with the Soviets regarding nuclear power.
These are the same Soviets (historically) that are responsible for Operation Trust, BTW, and that very much relied on trusting people being fooled into thinking they were verifying. Which is how they were able to capture Reilly and Savinkov.
It might be good advice when dealing with public-facing international politics against an equal-level nuclear power.
Not really good advice for a research site. At all.
Clearly, there is a question about authenticity.
The good news is this: we are questioning this after only 4 of these drops. So, we ARE using critical thinking, as a group.
Proceed with caution is a good position, unless and until solid confirmation comes in.
However, we can still analyze the drops from both Real and LARP perspectives.
Was Hutchinson's story believable?
No.
So, why would LARP/psyop want to push the idea that she was a plant?
What would be the benefit?
Clearly, it would be something Real Q would want to reveal, but Fake Q?
I get what your saying. I think we will find out in time. I have no problem being patient and having things proven as it comes. After all many Q posts are also not brought to light til years later!.
As far as what a Fake Q's motives would be, that is up in the air.
But in my mind lets say I hypothetically had access to Q's account and I wanted to play games on it.
My first goal would be to establish trust. Even if I believed Hutchinson's story I absolutely would pretend not. Any real agenda or change of direction would need to happen slowly and subtlety to avoid people catching on. If your a bad actor and your any good at it, I feel like you would put in the work to establish trust.
Not saying that's what is happening. But motives is something that very hard to really know and so I can't go off of that as a reason to trust alone. Maybe as a overall trend or on a checklist but undeniable proofs are unfortunately the only real way to verify 100%.