I get into trouble sometimes for suggesting that certain people might be playing a role for good. BUT this movie is so clever it is hard not to be open to the thought at this stage.
Yah. People too easily forget that this is a psywar. Normies are MEANT to have a certain viewpoint to build public opinion, but anons are meant to be thinking and observing on different level.
First and foremost, we really should NOT simply be taking things at face value, and understand that the whole public sphere is awash with narratives and psyops. Looking at the net effects that a person's actions have is a far more effective way of getting to the core than just looking at what they SEEM like.
But just because people can come to a conclusion about someone playing a role or not doesn't make it true, and so discussion should never be shut down on the premise of whether someone is good/bad/etc.
I'm not really sure where the "but" comes from, because I could not agree with you more. No sincere discussion motivated n good faith needs to be or should be shut down. The only exception would be if it is off-topic.
Sorry, I just mean that some people will take that to mean that because X number of people believe Y person is working for white hats means that you can't disagree with that.
I don't buy that Pence is, for example, though some even still remain adamant he is. Which is fine, ultimately we don't know specifics.
I do hope the people playing the bad guys are honored for their personal sacrifice down the line though.
Two things I will find more interesting than anything else: What happened to allow us to win the 2016 Election, and also, what "DS" actors have actually been White Hats this whole time.
What happened was the DNC insisted on forcing through a candidate that had already been rebuffed by primary voters and ran her against someone with actual popular support.
I knew plenty of people who were happy to vote for the “first female president” who also had the letter next to her name that they liked - very very few of them actually LIKED Clinton as a person or a candidate. They just kind of shrugged at the forcefeeding and accepted it because hey woman and also she had the correct letter. I met maybe two people in 2016 who were EXCITED about voting for Clinton for anything besides “the historic nature” of it.
Actually, fuck, I say that, but I can’t even pull up the two people. I may not have met anyone, and I was doing the con circuit and meeting all sorts of folks that year.
But I am sure we both met many people who were FERVENT with excitement for Trump that year.
That’s why he won. He was the better, stronger candidate who had a more realistic vision of America as it is, and his opponents could not for the life of them see that.
Because there was no rigging. He was a better candidate. Give him his due.
You have to understand that the DNC has an incompetence matched only by their own self-importance. There was no rigging in 2016 because they truly believed, despite all the evidence, that Clinton was a shoo-in, because they did not and do not see America clearly in the way Trump does.
It’s just a bunch of boomers entrenched in power for decades getting so high on their own supply they OD’d. And frankly, the RNC was headed in the same damn direction, but their “fringe” candidate who was not part of the machine and whom the machine desperately tried to kill (metaphorically) in the primaries was stronger and able to sell a better story than the left’s version (Sanders).
The DNC of course quickly learned their lesson and then pivoted in 2020 to back an (extremely relative) outsider with actual fervent, groundswelling, youthful support behind him, instead of crowning a long-time company man because he put in the work and it’s “his time” and he “deserves it”.
I get into trouble sometimes for suggesting that certain people might be playing a role for good. BUT this movie is so clever it is hard not to be open to the thought at this stage.
Yah. People too easily forget that this is a psywar. Normies are MEANT to have a certain viewpoint to build public opinion, but anons are meant to be thinking and observing on different level.
First and foremost, we really should NOT simply be taking things at face value, and understand that the whole public sphere is awash with narratives and psyops. Looking at the net effects that a person's actions have is a far more effective way of getting to the core than just looking at what they SEEM like.
But just because people can come to a conclusion about someone playing a role or not doesn't make it true, and so discussion should never be shut down on the premise of whether someone is good/bad/etc.
I'm not really sure where the "but" comes from, because I could not agree with you more. No sincere discussion motivated n good faith needs to be or should be shut down. The only exception would be if it is off-topic.
Sorry, I just mean that some people will take that to mean that because X number of people believe Y person is working for white hats means that you can't disagree with that.
I don't buy that Pence is, for example, though some even still remain adamant he is. Which is fine, ultimately we don't know specifics.
I do hope the people playing the bad guys are honored for their personal sacrifice down the line though.
Two things I will find more interesting than anything else: What happened to allow us to win the 2016 Election, and also, what "DS" actors have actually been White Hats this whole time.
What happened was the DNC insisted on forcing through a candidate that had already been rebuffed by primary voters and ran her against someone with actual popular support.
I knew plenty of people who were happy to vote for the “first female president” who also had the letter next to her name that they liked - very very few of them actually LIKED Clinton as a person or a candidate. They just kind of shrugged at the forcefeeding and accepted it because hey woman and also she had the correct letter. I met maybe two people in 2016 who were EXCITED about voting for Clinton for anything besides “the historic nature” of it.
Actually, fuck, I say that, but I can’t even pull up the two people. I may not have met anyone, and I was doing the con circuit and meeting all sorts of folks that year.
But I am sure we both met many people who were FERVENT with excitement for Trump that year.
That’s why he won. He was the better, stronger candidate who had a more realistic vision of America as it is, and his opponents could not for the life of them see that.
I'm with you. I'm not suggesting he won illegitimately. I'm saying I want the story on how they (us) beat the rigging that year.
Because there was no rigging. He was a better candidate. Give him his due.
You have to understand that the DNC has an incompetence matched only by their own self-importance. There was no rigging in 2016 because they truly believed, despite all the evidence, that Clinton was a shoo-in, because they did not and do not see America clearly in the way Trump does.
It’s just a bunch of boomers entrenched in power for decades getting so high on their own supply they OD’d. And frankly, the RNC was headed in the same damn direction, but their “fringe” candidate who was not part of the machine and whom the machine desperately tried to kill (metaphorically) in the primaries was stronger and able to sell a better story than the left’s version (Sanders).
The DNC of course quickly learned their lesson and then pivoted in 2020 to back an (extremely relative) outsider with actual fervent, groundswelling, youthful support behind him, instead of crowning a long-time company man because he put in the work and it’s “his time” and he “deserves it”.
Oh wait