I've spent my entire adult life heavily involved in faith communities, issues of faith, including multiple religious faiths and interfaith activities. I've seen the powerful side of faith and belief, and the limiting, unproductive and unhealthy side of faith and belief. Approaches to doctrine and doctrinal thought included.
What stands out for me a mile is the character of the attachment to the "This Biden is Not Real" narratives. In my view, they exhibit far more characteristics of the unreasoned adherence to belief and doctrine than they do to critical thinking OR reason-based faith supported by real life practice.
Just saying.
If people were really applying critical thinking and Q-based approaches to this whole set of narratives (none of which are directly confirmed by the Q drops, but which rather rely on specific interpretations of the Q drops that are by no means definitive, but very much open to debate, if people were willing), then there would be empirical studies, clinical studies (aka comparative reviews and studies that present a fact based case offer explanations for all the things that do NOT support the narratives). But there aren't.
If anyone has real bona fide expertise in any area or practice, then they KNOW the difference between conjecture based on limited evidence, uninformed biases and ideas on one hand, and expert, knowledge-based, definitive evaluation on the other.
I'm still waiting for the latter when it comes to Biden Man Not Biden Man narratives (of which there are many). They aren't there, or else, they are hiding somewhere.
Instead, all we get is: "Look!!! See!!! It's obvious!!!" and "Gee, that looks like X to me...." etc.
I'll admit, there is a modicum of reasoning, for example, attempts to compare older images with new images, and to put together a collection of evidence, but in my view, those attempts I have seen never reach the level of serious clinical expertise that should be possible if the truth upheld the ideas.
For me, that's a tell. And, it's one feature of the tendency towards personal or collective doctrinal thinking rather than free-thinking as Q put it:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
I do think the narratives should be discussed, but so far, I find them far too unreasonable. Not simply the photographic evidence for example, but other aspects, of the HOW, the WHY, etc. For example, how many other premises are required to even make the BMNBM narratives work? Mass deception by the white hats? How is the ethically acceptable? No one around the individual knows? Or are they all silenced? Or are they ALSO all replaced?
Whereas the black hats only have restrictions in terms of their own self interest, and anything aside from that goes for them, the white hats have restrictions and limits. That's what law and order are.
If the White hats were simply conducting a massive deception program in order to get us back from the black Hats rule, then how are they different?
So again, another element (and not the only one) that is needed to buy into the BMNBM narratives is a whole world view that posits mass deception (oh, for our own good), including non-verifiable facts that one has to just believe in, etc.
Another is practicality. Let's jsut say that Biden was not Biden (even though you can NEVER prove it, but you still want to believe it because it seems that way to you), how does this have any real-world impact on the Great Awakening, except perhaps simply for indoctrinating others in those beliefs?
From a multi-dimensional perspective, there are plenty of holes in the BMNBM narratives, even though many prefer to simply dismiss them. As such, do those narratives really warrant the "All -in" attitude that many ..... 'true believers' adopt?
(Somewhat) sadly, not in my view.
PS. Thought experiment: Take photos of DJT, and other evidence around DJT, and apply the exact same standards, objectively, to the idea that the DJT we see now is NOT the original DJT. Can you do this objectively? Or try it with anyone else on 'our' side. Litmus test. hmmm....
And how do you tell the difference? At what point does a "detached" earlobe become an "attached" earlobe? Does it ever occur to you that the human body has a remarkable range of presentation? Maybe it is only your problem in trying to categorize an earlobe that is at the boundary of what you imagine to be the two cases.
I've spent my entire adult life heavily involved in faith communities, issues of faith, including multiple religious faiths and interfaith activities. I've seen the powerful side of faith and belief, and the limiting, unproductive and unhealthy side of faith and belief. Approaches to doctrine and doctrinal thought included.
What stands out for me a mile is the character of the attachment to the "This Biden is Not Real" narratives. In my view, they exhibit far more characteristics of the unreasoned adherence to belief and doctrine than they do to critical thinking OR reason-based faith supported by real life practice.
Just saying.
If people were really applying critical thinking and Q-based approaches to this whole set of narratives (none of which are directly confirmed by the Q drops, but which rather rely on specific interpretations of the Q drops that are by no means definitive, but very much open to debate, if people were willing), then there would be empirical studies, clinical studies (aka comparative reviews and studies that present a fact based case offer explanations for all the things that do NOT support the narratives). But there aren't.
If anyone has real bona fide expertise in any area or practice, then they KNOW the difference between conjecture based on limited evidence, uninformed biases and ideas on one hand, and expert, knowledge-based, definitive evaluation on the other.
I'm still waiting for the latter when it comes to Biden Man Not Biden Man narratives (of which there are many). They aren't there, or else, they are hiding somewhere.
Instead, all we get is: "Look!!! See!!! It's obvious!!!" and "Gee, that looks like X to me...." etc.
I'll admit, there is a modicum of reasoning, for example, attempts to compare older images with new images, and to put together a collection of evidence, but in my view, those attempts I have seen never reach the level of serious clinical expertise that should be possible if the truth upheld the ideas.
For me, that's a tell. And, it's one feature of the tendency towards personal or collective doctrinal thinking rather than free-thinking as Q put it:
I do think the narratives should be discussed, but so far, I find them far too unreasonable. Not simply the photographic evidence for example, but other aspects, of the HOW, the WHY, etc. For example, how many other premises are required to even make the BMNBM narratives work? Mass deception by the white hats? How is the ethically acceptable? No one around the individual knows? Or are they all silenced? Or are they ALSO all replaced?
Whereas the black hats only have restrictions in terms of their own self interest, and anything aside from that goes for them, the white hats have restrictions and limits. That's what law and order are.
If the White hats were simply conducting a massive deception program in order to get us back from the black Hats rule, then how are they different?
So again, another element (and not the only one) that is needed to buy into the BMNBM narratives is a whole world view that posits mass deception (oh, for our own good), including non-verifiable facts that one has to just believe in, etc.
Another is practicality. Let's jsut say that Biden was not Biden (even though you can NEVER prove it, but you still want to believe it because it seems that way to you), how does this have any real-world impact on the Great Awakening, except perhaps simply for indoctrinating others in those beliefs?
From a multi-dimensional perspective, there are plenty of holes in the BMNBM narratives, even though many prefer to simply dismiss them. As such, do those narratives really warrant the "All -in" attitude that many ..... 'true believers' adopt?
(Somewhat) sadly, not in my view.
PS. Thought experiment: Take photos of DJT, and other evidence around DJT, and apply the exact same standards, objectively, to the idea that the DJT we see now is NOT the original DJT. Can you do this objectively? Or try it with anyone else on 'our' side. Litmus test. hmmm....
Good for you. I've spent a lifetime looking at my own face in the mirror, and it changes...it changes.
Is it possible for detached earlobes to be “attached” its been a real head scratcher. Referring to images of Vice Joe vs Pres Joe
And how do you tell the difference? At what point does a "detached" earlobe become an "attached" earlobe? Does it ever occur to you that the human body has a remarkable range of presentation? Maybe it is only your problem in trying to categorize an earlobe that is at the boundary of what you imagine to be the two cases.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣