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.
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.