I know I'm going to get downvoted for this but dammit, people need to stop saying that those who are scrutinizing this situation as "dooming". It pisses me off because Q went to great lengths to emphasize the importance of critical thinking. There are some legitimate flags here that need to be addressed and libeling the people that are thinking critically as "dooming" pisses me the hell off.
Stop accusing these people of dooming and start effing thinking.
They're not dooming. They're trying to protect you and every other red-blooded American by vetting these new Q drops.
I'm not saying that this is not the real Q. But there are some technical elements that need to be evaluated before the critical thinkers can accept these new posts as legitimate.
There's a small vocal contingent of weak-minded people here who fled from the_donald after the 2020 steal, and all they're looking for is a safe space to share copium. They always seep out like roaches anytime their delicate sensibilities are threatened by anyone who displays an ounce of critical thinking. And instead of skimming past discourse they find intellectually uncomfortable, they actively try to censor it.
They are collectivists in mind, body, and soul. When they call you a doomer for asking questions it's the exact same weak-minded group think that leftists project when they call you conspiracy theorists for raising those same questions.
People need to learn to distinguish between the various components of any text/message.
First, there is the informational aspect. The information may be true, false, or a mix.
Second, there is a motivational aspect. This is the intent behind the output of the information. That motivational aspect can be varied, driven by certain emotional inclinations and directions, or by purpose.
Without distinguishing between these two components of any text/message, people will regularly fall into the trap of confusing the real nature of the text/message and misinterpreting it.
The informational aspect is the external form of the text/message, the 'body' or flesh, if you will accept the analogy. Usually, is clear and up front, but not always, as in the case with cryptic messages, or obscure or ambiguous content.
The motivational aspect is the internal character of the text/message, the 'mind' or spirit of the text/message. By nature, it is less visible than the outer form (the informational aspect), and less easy to pinpoint. That's why people can much more easily confuse or misread this aspect of the text/message.
In regards to your comment, the informational aspect can be confirmation or affirmation of the core premise e.g. "this is a legit Q post" or can question that premise, or deny that premise, etc. None of these informational contents are inherently good or bad, or uplifting or dooming, etc.
What defines whether it's dooming, or optimistic, or constructive, or destructive, unifying, or dividing, etc., is the motivational aspect.
Thus, people can talk about why this ISN'T a Q drop, for example, but for constructive purposes (i.e. trying to get to the truth of the matter, by discussing) or for destructive purposes (i.e. venting and amplifying a negative emotional charge in order to experience some sense of personal relief, OR, i.e. to sow doubt, distrust, in order to increase division and conflict.
In other words, it's not what is being said that is the problem, but WHY it is being said. And this is one aspect that too many people ignore, or make subjectively defined but unrecognized evaluations of, based on their biases, or internal emotional state, or their conceptual framework of 'how things are'. It's the opposite of being objective.
That said, it's FINE to use subjective reasoning or evaluations, as long as one recognizes that this is what they are: e.g. This is my sense of things: as opposed to: this is how things are.
Anyway, as I stated at the start, people need to learn to distinguish between WHAT is being said from WHY it is being said. Without that, you'll get all sorts of pushback on perfectly legitimate expressions of thought and even concern, as well as overlooked shilling and board undermining.
At the risk of sounding like Hitlery, at this point it does not matter whether Q comes back or not, we are already activated and nothing can stop what is coming. We just need to keep marching on as digital soldiers, waking up people and actively combating false narratives in every corner of the internet!
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this but dammit, people need to stop saying that those who are scrutinizing this situation as "dooming". It pisses me off because Q went to great lengths to emphasize the importance of critical thinking. There are some legitimate flags here that need to be addressed and libeling the people that are thinking critically as "dooming" pisses me the hell off.
Stop accusing these people of dooming and start effing thinking.
They're not dooming. They're trying to protect you and every other red-blooded American by vetting these new Q drops.
I'm not saying that this is not the real Q. But there are some technical elements that need to be evaluated before the critical thinkers can accept these new posts as legitimate.
There's a small vocal contingent of weak-minded people here who fled from the_donald after the 2020 steal, and all they're looking for is a safe space to share copium. They always seep out like roaches anytime their delicate sensibilities are threatened by anyone who displays an ounce of critical thinking. And instead of skimming past discourse they find intellectually uncomfortable, they actively try to censor it.
They are collectivists in mind, body, and soul. When they call you a doomer for asking questions it's the exact same weak-minded group think that leftists project when they call you conspiracy theorists for raising those same questions.
ok doomer
Case in point and exhibit A
cucks only feel safe in their bubbles
sorry cuck must suck to suck
People need to learn to distinguish between the various components of any text/message.
First, there is the informational aspect. The information may be true, false, or a mix.
Second, there is a motivational aspect. This is the intent behind the output of the information. That motivational aspect can be varied, driven by certain emotional inclinations and directions, or by purpose.
Without distinguishing between these two components of any text/message, people will regularly fall into the trap of confusing the real nature of the text/message and misinterpreting it.
The informational aspect is the external form of the text/message, the 'body' or flesh, if you will accept the analogy. Usually, is clear and up front, but not always, as in the case with cryptic messages, or obscure or ambiguous content.
The motivational aspect is the internal character of the text/message, the 'mind' or spirit of the text/message. By nature, it is less visible than the outer form (the informational aspect), and less easy to pinpoint. That's why people can much more easily confuse or misread this aspect of the text/message.
In regards to your comment, the informational aspect can be confirmation or affirmation of the core premise e.g. "this is a legit Q post" or can question that premise, or deny that premise, etc. None of these informational contents are inherently good or bad, or uplifting or dooming, etc.
What defines whether it's dooming, or optimistic, or constructive, or destructive, unifying, or dividing, etc., is the motivational aspect.
Thus, people can talk about why this ISN'T a Q drop, for example, but for constructive purposes (i.e. trying to get to the truth of the matter, by discussing) or for destructive purposes (i.e. venting and amplifying a negative emotional charge in order to experience some sense of personal relief, OR, i.e. to sow doubt, distrust, in order to increase division and conflict.
In other words, it's not what is being said that is the problem, but WHY it is being said. And this is one aspect that too many people ignore, or make subjectively defined but unrecognized evaluations of, based on their biases, or internal emotional state, or their conceptual framework of 'how things are'. It's the opposite of being objective.
That said, it's FINE to use subjective reasoning or evaluations, as long as one recognizes that this is what they are: e.g. This is my sense of things: as opposed to: this is how things are.
Anyway, as I stated at the start, people need to learn to distinguish between WHAT is being said from WHY it is being said. Without that, you'll get all sorts of pushback on perfectly legitimate expressions of thought and even concern, as well as overlooked shilling and board undermining.
And that's all I have to write about that.
At the risk of sounding like Hitlery, at this point it does not matter whether Q comes back or not, we are already activated and nothing can stop what is coming. We just need to keep marching on as digital soldiers, waking up people and actively combating false narratives in every corner of the internet!