Rolling Stone posts panicked article about "QAnon", citing specific members here, due to connecting dots between Beatles, Crowley, Child Sacrifice, & the Tavistock Institute. In an effort to disprove us, they managed to do the opposite and just spread research to the normies. We Are The News Now.
(www.rollingstone.com)
WE ARE THE NEWS
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (207)
sorted by:
People are just clinging to a fantasy that would be hilarious fun (JFK Jr) which is not the only fantasy people here have clung to.
I have definitely argued with a few silly flat earthers though. Medbeds are also popular.
Dunno about Trump bucks nonsense, but people do cling on NESARA.
It's always the same crowd here, spearheaded by at least one mod here. Which would be fine if it were contained to that demographic, however newbs find this crap stickied and may dive right into the paytriot traps.
Several of us anons have called this pattern of pushing/posting/shilling out fwiw. Don't be afraid to call out this nonsense when it rears its ugly head.
I am okay with limiting discussion to Q but it is disappointing how people even here turn into censoring, cruel authoritarians as soon as they reach the upper limit of their own personal red-pilling. This isn’t meant as an attack on anyone specifically because I think we are all guilty of this to one degree or another. Like most people here probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, but have you ever talked to older people who believe the official story totally? How angry they get when you question it? How they want any counter arguments or inconvenient evidence shut down?
But then the exact same people who don’t believe the official 9/11 narrative will turn around and act exactly like that when someone questions Sandy Hook. And then the same person who questions Sandy Hook will have their own threshold of what cannot be questioned and must be shut down. That might be JFK Jr. or viruses or bio-labs or whatever. But it’s not like those people are completely fair and open-minded either, because they will have their own limits of belief after which they ALSO demand censorship. And on and on it goes like this down the red-pill rabbit hole.
To me, free speech and free thought absolutism is pretty much where you have to go to avoid this. Otherwise everyone is arbitrarily choosing their own level of knowledge that people are allowed to believe and question, and that’s clearly different for everyone.
Also, has no one here ever been straight up humbled by being red-pilled on an issue? Like there was something you absolutely positively believed as true, to the point where you dismissed anyone who said otherwise, only to later learn for yourself that it was false, and not only were you wrong, but you were being a smug asshole while being wrong? Once you experience that flip in knowledge one time, shouldn’t it introduce the idea in your mind that there are other things you could absolutely positively believe that you are ALSO wrong about?
There's a difference between trying to shut down speech you don't like and trying to keep the forum focused.
Just because someone wants the forum to stay on topic doesn't mean they support banning any mention of a certain topic all over the internet or in real life.
Right, that is why I’m generally OK with certain conspiracy theories that I believe are true being banned here. I’m speaking less to that than I am the smug cruelty people even here will express towards anyone who believes something they personally disagree with or, more often, haven’t looked into. It surprises me that people who have been slandered for Trump, Q, Pizzagate, 9/11, Russian Collusion, and the mRNA Injection don’t pause before they turn around and act the same way towards someone who has looked into, say, Sandy Hook.