284
Comments (109)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
17
kkthxk 17 points ago +17 / -0

Trust but verify. This isn't a cult, people need to use their noggin's or the cycle never ends.

4
DarkSamus61 4 points ago +4 / -0

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.

3
MAGA_mandalorian 3 points ago +3 / -0

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

-1
ARandomOgre -1 points ago +4 / -5

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.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
DarkSamus61 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
ARandomOgre -2 points ago +2 / -4

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.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0