About 4 days ago I posted a mercola.com article where he featured RFK jr interviewing some guy on chemtrails. It got taken down within 10 minutes and I was told to post on conspiracies.win instead. How about that?
Do you remember who the mod was? There is one that is tyrannical on stuff like that. Which is stupid. If Q is not posting, we should be able to discuss any areas of interest surrounding the cabal and the state of our country. I would think.
There sure is a lot of talk about the scamdemic and vaccines, ivermectin, cbdcs, climate hoax, scripture, etc that are not directly Q related. They should censor those as well.
Q quotes the scriptures a LOT. The scamdemic was one of the primary focuses of anons and Q throughout 2020. Vaccines, ivermectin, cbdcs, etc.
Meh, maybe. Are they really 'conspiracy theories' at this point? Chem trails.... Yeah, I don't really know why the GAW steering team consider that topic different, but they do.
And personally, I think its fine for the forum owners and operators (aka the mod team0 to restrict what they want to be discussed here. For whatever reason, they don't think the chem trails would be a productive topic (along with flat earth, etc).
Whether folks like it or not, it is perfectly fine for the creators (or owners) to shape the forum as they see fit. They don't owe anyone anything really. In my opinion, this is a brilliant forum, they have done an amazing job (along with the community of pedes who populate this venue) at making a super high quality venue. People CAN go elsewhere to discuss those things if they want. No one is stopping them.
And, one can always MAKE the argument that GAW should be [this] based on your own desire for what you think it should be. But it doesn't mean anyone or the mod team etc, have to agree with the argument, or are in any way morally bound to uphold YOUR view or MY view of what GAW should be.
Either way, at the end of the day, it is NOT a free-speech forum, and the organizers are in fact free to shape their creation or their charge as they see fit. If they do a crap job, people won't visit, and it will decline.
The very fact that you are construing this as 'censoring' indicates you don't understand the concept of "free association". No one has to be here. We can participate if we choose. And if we choose, it really is incumbent on us to adhere to the parameters of the engagement.
Who knows? Maybe it comes down to the biases of one or more mods? So what? I like what GAW is, personally. And I'm not going to tell the folks who run it what it should and shouldn't be, as if somehow my opinion is what really counts.
Well said. The only thing I take exception to is bringing in the ol' "flat earth" argument. Always thrown in to discredit a legitimate conspiracy theory. But you make a valid point.
Ah, well, personally, I consider flat earth to be in a category all its own, and only mentioned it because I've noticed that it is one of the other off-topics along with chemtrail issues. They aren't really comparable, in my view.
I have people in my network who take the chemtrails issue quite seriously, based on personal experiences (engineers, etc). I don't know why its off topic here. Heck, even one of the red-pilling members of parliament in Aus is now asking for input from the community:
That's why they should allow discussion and posts about chem trails on this site.
They don't?? I didn't know that. They are real!
About 4 days ago I posted a mercola.com article where he featured RFK jr interviewing some guy on chemtrails. It got taken down within 10 minutes and I was told to post on conspiracies.win instead. How about that?
Do you remember who the mod was? There is one that is tyrannical on stuff like that. Which is stupid. If Q is not posting, we should be able to discuss any areas of interest surrounding the cabal and the state of our country. I would think.
THINK THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET TRAFFIC over to conspiracies.win ...just saying.
This is certainly not a forum for 100% free speech, indeed
Well, this isn't a conspiracy theory forum. (There is a .win for that.) Regardless of whether the conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact or not.
It's a Q research forum.
It's not a 'free speech' forum. It's a focused topic forum.
I know that some folks don't like it, but venues for those discussions abound aplenty.
There sure is a lot of talk about the scamdemic and vaccines, ivermectin, cbdcs, climate hoax, scripture, etc that are not directly Q related. They should censor those as well.
Q quotes the scriptures a LOT. The scamdemic was one of the primary focuses of anons and Q throughout 2020. Vaccines, ivermectin, cbdcs, etc.
Meh, maybe. Are they really 'conspiracy theories' at this point? Chem trails.... Yeah, I don't really know why the GAW steering team consider that topic different, but they do.
And personally, I think its fine for the forum owners and operators (aka the mod team0 to restrict what they want to be discussed here. For whatever reason, they don't think the chem trails would be a productive topic (along with flat earth, etc).
Whether folks like it or not, it is perfectly fine for the creators (or owners) to shape the forum as they see fit. They don't owe anyone anything really. In my opinion, this is a brilliant forum, they have done an amazing job (along with the community of pedes who populate this venue) at making a super high quality venue. People CAN go elsewhere to discuss those things if they want. No one is stopping them.
And, one can always MAKE the argument that GAW should be [this] based on your own desire for what you think it should be. But it doesn't mean anyone or the mod team etc, have to agree with the argument, or are in any way morally bound to uphold YOUR view or MY view of what GAW should be.
Either way, at the end of the day, it is NOT a free-speech forum, and the organizers are in fact free to shape their creation or their charge as they see fit. If they do a crap job, people won't visit, and it will decline.
The very fact that you are construing this as 'censoring' indicates you don't understand the concept of "free association". No one has to be here. We can participate if we choose. And if we choose, it really is incumbent on us to adhere to the parameters of the engagement.
Who knows? Maybe it comes down to the biases of one or more mods? So what? I like what GAW is, personally. And I'm not going to tell the folks who run it what it should and shouldn't be, as if somehow my opinion is what really counts.
Anyway, that's my view.
Well said. The only thing I take exception to is bringing in the ol' "flat earth" argument. Always thrown in to discredit a legitimate conspiracy theory. But you make a valid point.
Ah, well, personally, I consider flat earth to be in a category all its own, and only mentioned it because I've noticed that it is one of the other off-topics along with chemtrail issues. They aren't really comparable, in my view.
I have people in my network who take the chemtrails issue quite seriously, based on personal experiences (engineers, etc). I don't know why its off topic here. Heck, even one of the red-pilling members of parliament in Aus is now asking for input from the community:
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/evidence-on-cloud-seeding-required-to-be-investigated/
In any case, thanks for the response and the feedback. wwg1wga
You're AWESOME!
True anons don't glowfag tho? ;)
Conspiracy scientist.