Still not seeing any direct sourcing of anything. "Go look it up yourself" is one thing, linking to it so people can discern exactly what he sees is what I'm asking for. Idk why this is so hard for people to understand.
So you disprove me saying he's a grifter by saying his grift is different since he owns up to it? And again, he doesn't hide that he just uses other people's research, and if that's the case, why doesn't he ever link to any of it in the comments or anything? Why is that so hard? If you ever try and prove anything, the first thing people want is sourcing, why am I the bad guy for calling him out for not doing that while he gleefully steals research that has the decency to source everything in the very research he steals. If he wants people to be GME pilled or red pilled on other topics, wouldn't it logically make sense to want to POINT PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF MORE INFORMATION THEY CAN EXPAND THEIR KNOWLEDGE WITH? Why does he only want people listening to him? BECAUSE he wants all eyes on him! Whether he does anything nefarious with it or not is one thing, I'm just sick of the dishonest grifters stealing the limelight, acting like they do all this work, and NEVER POINTING PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF MORE INFORMATION.
As for the vindication comment, I get that it's weird, I just get in arguments over this guy irl all the time trying to point this very thing out that he never sources anything and he's just trying to pass off others info as his own.
He shows his sources period. But ok you think he should make wiki citation style walls of text for all his tiktok videos. You could always contact him and tell him this.
I just hope he keeps spreading eye opening redpill videos full of crowd-sourced information to millions of normies. Or "stealing peoples research" as you call it.
And you seriously get in arguments with people irl about where he sTeALs his facts from!? You do that instead of being glad they are waking up, and pointing them in the direction of more (sToLeN) info to help them open their eyes? Thats not something to be proud of.
He shows his sources period. But ok you think he should make walls of text out of those sources for all his tiktok videos. You could always contact him and tell him this.
All I'm asking for is the link back to the superstonk DD, the Q research, news article, website, or the Twitter thread he got his info from. It would literally be one link to the already written and completed research that already has that source inside of it. This strawman about a wall of text doesn't negate my point at all.
And I agree he's doing a service by spreading the word, but he would be doing an even greater service by pointing people in a direction where they can do their own research by seeing THE ORIGINAL STUFF. By not linking back to it and trying to pass it off as his own, he does everyone a disservice.
The people I argue with about him irl are already awake. Again, from my previous comment:
I just get in arguments over this guy irl all the time trying to point this very thing out that he never sources anything and he's just trying to pass off other's info as his own.
The debate I'm having with you right now is the exact same debate I have with the already awake irl. He's doing both the researchers and the viewers a disservice by not linking back to the original and letting people see more for themselves.
I haven't backpedaled at all, he's literally a grifter branding himself with other people's work. If he linked to the original source with all the other DD people could be reading on top of what he covers, I wouldn't have a problem with him. He passes it off as his own while branding himself. IDK how many times I have to say that.
I get your point. It's true, making sources easy to link into is good. His content and commentary has value. Citing others work isn't stealing. Referring back to others work and content is part of the work, no?
Yes, which is why I'm asking why he doesn't do that. I enjoyed his content at first, even though I've known all he's doing is regurgitating others'work since I've literally heard the research he brings up already. Over time, though, I've grown weary of people like him who don't link to any sources whatsoever and pass it off as their own. If he didn't put his face and name front and center, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But by doing it, he's just branding himself. As Q said, anons do this work for free.
Brother, Q literally said anons do this work for free. I've been a part of this train waking people up around me and online for 10 years now, before Q even started. Sorry I don't have a tangible grift I can point to that'll satiate you. You're really fired up all because I pointed out someone is doing people a disservice, take a look in the mirror.
Still not seeing any direct sourcing of anything. "Go look it up yourself" is one thing, linking to it so people can discern exactly what he sees is what I'm asking for. Idk why this is so hard for people to understand.
So you disprove me saying he's a grifter by saying his grift is different since he owns up to it? And again, he doesn't hide that he just uses other people's research, and if that's the case, why doesn't he ever link to any of it in the comments or anything? Why is that so hard? If you ever try and prove anything, the first thing people want is sourcing, why am I the bad guy for calling him out for not doing that while he gleefully steals research that has the decency to source everything in the very research he steals. If he wants people to be GME pilled or red pilled on other topics, wouldn't it logically make sense to want to POINT PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF MORE INFORMATION THEY CAN EXPAND THEIR KNOWLEDGE WITH? Why does he only want people listening to him? BECAUSE he wants all eyes on him! Whether he does anything nefarious with it or not is one thing, I'm just sick of the dishonest grifters stealing the limelight, acting like they do all this work, and NEVER POINTING PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF MORE INFORMATION.
As for the vindication comment, I get that it's weird, I just get in arguments over this guy irl all the time trying to point this very thing out that he never sources anything and he's just trying to pass off others info as his own.
He shows his sources period. But ok you think he should make wiki citation style walls of text for all his tiktok videos. You could always contact him and tell him this.
I just hope he keeps spreading eye opening redpill videos full of crowd-sourced information to millions of normies. Or "stealing peoples research" as you call it.
And you seriously get in arguments with people irl about where he sTeALs his facts from!? You do that instead of being glad they are waking up, and pointing them in the direction of more (sToLeN) info to help them open their eyes? Thats not something to be proud of.
All I'm asking for is the link back to the superstonk DD, the Q research, news article, website, or the Twitter thread he got his info from. It would literally be one link to the already written and completed research that already has that source inside of it. This strawman about a wall of text doesn't negate my point at all.
And I agree he's doing a service by spreading the word, but he would be doing an even greater service by pointing people in a direction where they can do their own research by seeing THE ORIGINAL STUFF. By not linking back to it and trying to pass it off as his own, he does everyone a disservice.
The people I argue with about him irl are already awake. Again, from my previous comment:
The debate I'm having with you right now is the exact same debate I have with the already awake irl. He's doing both the researchers and the viewers a disservice by not linking back to the original and letting people see more for themselves.
He doesnt try to pass off crowd-sourced info as his own. He shows his sources in the videos. He is not a grifter.
Youre just back-peddling from "He is a grifter" to "But he doesnt present his sources in an easily clickable format".
You should probably listen to your friends that seem to understand the concept of crowd-sourced information better than you.
I haven't backpedaled at all, he's literally a grifter branding himself with other people's work. If he linked to the original source with all the other DD people could be reading on top of what he covers, I wouldn't have a problem with him. He passes it off as his own while branding himself. IDK how many times I have to say that.
I get your point. It's true, making sources easy to link into is good. His content and commentary has value. Citing others work isn't stealing. Referring back to others work and content is part of the work, no?
Yes, which is why I'm asking why he doesn't do that. I enjoyed his content at first, even though I've known all he's doing is regurgitating others'work since I've literally heard the research he brings up already. Over time, though, I've grown weary of people like him who don't link to any sources whatsoever and pass it off as their own. If he didn't put his face and name front and center, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But by doing it, he's just branding himself. As Q said, anons do this work for free.
He puts way more effort then you have or ever will into truth telling
Brother, Q literally said anons do this work for free. I've been a part of this train waking people up around me and online for 10 years now, before Q even started. Sorry I don't have a tangible grift I can point to that'll satiate you. You're really fired up all because I pointed out someone is doing people a disservice, take a look in the mirror.