My audience is anyone who reads this thread. Not just anyone who comments on it. Are you imaginary?
I assume you're just in the mood for a fight and not asking me in good faith, but just in case you are, if you want to know what conflict I'm referring to feel free to navigate your way to the post I linked in my first comment.
But since I don't believe you'll do that, I'll just explain anyway. I got time.
I think there's a trend on the board right now to obsess over who and who are not "our guys." Is Joe Rogan "our guy"? Is Jordan Peterson "our guy"? Is Ron DeSantis? Is Alex Jones? And so on and so forth.
I think it's a fruitless pursuit. I felt this clip of Bill Maher does a great job of illustrating why that is.
Truth is truth regardless of the source. Many here seem eager for someone they can rely to always tell them the truth to keep from having to think for themselves. These people struggle when Q seems to say something that doesn't seem so or doesn't come to pass (at least in the time or way they think it should or wish it would), or when GEOTUS inexplicably refuses to denounce the vaccine.
I think Q is playing a game with society (hence: "shall we play a game?"). A game that's meant to get us to think critically. Not only does he say some things that are seemingly untrue at times in order to bait the Deep State into making mistakes, it also keeps us honest, so that we don't get lazy and start relying on Q or GEOTUS or any one individual to do our thinking for us.
For example: is JFK Jr. really not alive? Q said he wasn't. Do you believe Q? Q also said disinformation was necessary. So could Q have been lying about JFK Jr. because it was necessary? Do we have any choice but to wonder now given that fact? I sometimes see people say "Q said X, therefore it is so." How do they square the 'disinformation is necessary' comment then? Why are they treating Q's words as gospel when Q seemed to suggest that Q might not always tell the truth for apparently tactical reasons (actually he never mentioned the nature of the reasons, he merely said it was 'necessary' so that could mean all kinds of things couldn't it?) so do you believe him or not?
And thus...Q gets us to think critically.
Is that really a conflict you don't think exists, or are you just looking for a cheap argument with someone you think is an easy target because the post he's commenting on has very few other comments other than, ironically, yours?
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not. How in the hell did anything I just say "cover for Reiner"? The guy is a complete and utter dipshit. "Armed attack on the Capitol with the intent to kill lawmakers"? Who in their right mind thinks that's what happened on January 6th? The guy is obviously either fucking retarded or...honestly I don't even know what to think about him and what he said. I didn't even think that was the point of the clip though. I thought it was to point out that lefty mcleftist Bill Maher was agreeing with the fact that the FBI had no legal basis for raiding Trump's house.
What's your angle, dude? Is this like...your thing?
Imma check out your post history. I smell troll.
*edit - Nah I checked your history. You seem legit enough to me. Seems like your replies are generally honest and not troll-like. So...what is this? You just in a weird mood?
My audience is anyone who reads this thread. Not just anyone who comments on it. Are you imaginary?
I assume you're just in the mood for a fight and not asking me in good faith, but just in case you are, if you want to know what conflict I'm referring to feel free to navigate your way to the post I linked in my first comment.
But since I don't believe you'll do that, I'll just explain anyway. I got time.
I think there's a trend on the board right now to obsess over who and who are not "our guys." Is Joe Rogan "our guy"? Is Jordan Peterson "our guy"? Is Ron DeSantis? Is Alex Jones? And so on and so forth.
I think it's a fruitless pursuit. I felt this clip of Bill Maher does a great job of illustrating why that is.
Truth is truth regardless of the source. Many here seem eager for someone they can rely to always tell them the truth to keep from having to think for themselves. These people struggle when Q seems to say something that doesn't seem so or doesn't come to pass (at least in the time or way they think it should or wish it would), or when GEOTUS inexplicably refuses to denounce the vaccine.
I think Q is playing a game with society (hence: "shall we play a game?"). A game that's meant to get us to think critically. Not only does he say some things that are seemingly untrue at times in order to bait the Deep State into making mistakes, it also keeps us honest, so that we don't get lazy and start relying on Q or GEOTUS or any one individual to do our thinking for us.
For example: is JFK Jr. really not alive? Q said he wasn't. Do you believe Q? Q also said disinformation was necessary. So could Q have been lying about JFK Jr. because it was necessary? Do we have any choice but to wonder now given that fact? I sometimes see people say "Q said X, therefore it is so." How do they square the 'disinformation is necessary' comment then? Why are they treating Q's words as gospel when Q seemed to suggest that Q might not always tell the truth for apparently tactical reasons (actually he never mentioned the nature of the reasons, he merely said it was 'necessary' so that could mean all kinds of things couldn't it?) so do you believe him or not?
And thus...Q gets us to think critically.
Is that really a conflict you don't think exists, or are you just looking for a cheap argument with someone you think is an easy target because the post he's commenting on has very few other comments other than, ironically, yours?
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not. How in the hell did anything I just say "cover for Reiner"? The guy is a complete and utter dipshit. "Armed attack on the Capitol with the intent to kill lawmakers"? Who in their right mind thinks that's what happened on January 6th? The guy is obviously either fucking retarded or...honestly I don't even know what to think about him and what he said. I didn't even think that was the point of the clip though. I thought it was to point out that lefty mcleftist Bill Maher was agreeing with the fact that the FBI had no legal basis for raiding Trump's house.
What's your angle, dude? Is this like...your thing?
Imma check out your post history. I smell troll.
*edit - Nah I checked your history. You seem legit enough to me. Seems like your replies are generally honest and not troll-like. So...what is this? You just in a weird mood?