Belittling the listener is a very passive aggressive method of pushing the idea that I am special and you are not and you had better believe me because x, y and z....
Not that I am disagreeing with what you posted, but one thing I wanted to point out
A lot of anons or Trump supports belittle leftists for not knowing what we know. When you are never believed by people a person tends to get mad and call names to the sheep. GAW has less of this, but check Patriots.win. Full of people belittling leftists.
Also she gives me some vibes of when Kappy was sharing info. He didn't call names but seemed as excited as her to spread info to the people sending messages.
This is really just my initial impressions, and obviously requires more. She appeared quite different on the Peters interview.
However, full disclosure: I am always very skeptical of potential disinformation agents, whether done for private personal benefit or as part of an anti-truth psyop. When large claims are made, I find that the demeanor and behavior of the claimant are limited in how useful they are, and that more substantive evidence is required than just telling a story that pushes certain buttons but which are very difficult to corroborate.
Some of us are willing to believe in things simply because they appeal to us and give us a sense of surety, rather than because we've applied discretion, discernment and allowed ourselves to be OK with not actually knowing.
To me it seems that HOW we process the information is often more important in a practical sense than whether the information is actually truthful or not.
Not that I am disagreeing with what you posted, but one thing I wanted to point out
A lot of anons or Trump supports belittle leftists for not knowing what we know. When you are never believed by people a person tends to get mad and call names to the sheep. GAW has less of this, but check Patriots.win. Full of people belittling leftists.
Also she gives me some vibes of when Kappy was sharing info. He didn't call names but seemed as excited as her to spread info to the people sending messages.
Thanks for the input. Valid points.
This is really just my initial impressions, and obviously requires more. She appeared quite different on the Peters interview.
However, full disclosure: I am always very skeptical of potential disinformation agents, whether done for private personal benefit or as part of an anti-truth psyop. When large claims are made, I find that the demeanor and behavior of the claimant are limited in how useful they are, and that more substantive evidence is required than just telling a story that pushes certain buttons but which are very difficult to corroborate.
Some of us are willing to believe in things simply because they appeal to us and give us a sense of surety, rather than because we've applied discretion, discernment and allowed ourselves to be OK with not actually knowing.
To me it seems that HOW we process the information is often more important in a practical sense than whether the information is actually truthful or not.