Anyone else notice a shift in the content being posted here? Similar to Youtubers posting misleading content with sensationalized titles with all caps with no content to back it up. I thought it could be purposeful misinformation to mislead. Then I thought they could be posts that make us look like idiots to the outside world.
I am sure the mods have their hands full and do a marvelous job of sifting the BS. They can't stop them all though. I still think we have paid trolls disrupting the flow of information here. I wouldnt be surprised at all if we found out the Krassenstein morons are here posting under some Maga alias.
There are things you can make jokes about, and speculate about, but which don't have enough solid evidence for any declarations. And there does seem to be a tendency for people here to give those declarations.
I once tried to talk about the "Big Mike IS a MAN" ones as I haven't seen anything truly solid about that, and think treating it as a proven fact is likely to drive away people who might otherwise be willing to listen to those parts that actually have more solid evidence behind them as it does probably sound rather stupid to anybody who is still getting most of their information from MSM, but just might have some doubts lately. So yes, declarations like that are a bad idea, IMO.
Well, that got quite a lot of downvotes so I left it.
But that is just one. Now there seem to be a lot of these "Kamala has no African ancestry" ones, but while she is mostly Indian, with her Indian mother, and having presumably due to that grown up with more of an Indian culture, and her father being Jamaican she can't have had much if any contacts with African American culture, that father does seem to have also African ancestry so that is again one declaration that if treated as a fact certainly makes places like this look bad for anybody curious who just dares to take a peek.
She isn't really black, maybe, but she seems to have at least some of that DNA. So, how about concentrating on the fact that she certainly can't be particularly familiar with what the experience of American Blacks has been and is, maybe?
About those Big Mike ones - what solid evidence is there really supposed to be? Joan Rivers said that she was trans? Maybe she was just playing with the reporters. Maybe she was feeling catty and thought starting that rumor would be funny. Maybe she was serious but, as she said only "trans", not "transwoman", actually meant "transman", and Michelle is a woman who plays a man to her husband who happens to like men, doing things like wearing a false dick for his sake in bed.
Then there are those photos of that make her look male, or that she has a bulge where a woman wouldn't. But photos can be altered. And from her time in the White House there are also still stories online with childhood photos, of a little girl who certainly bears a strong resemblance to adult "Mike", and there is still around a video of her in the gym wearing tights that certainly do not show any bulge in the groin region. And those latter photos are what most people are familiar with. So which photos have been altered, her as a child or in gym tights, or the ones where she looks more like a man, or seems to have a bulge in the nether region?
Good luck trying to persuade anybody who is just familiar with the public photos and doesn't happen to already personally dislike "Mike" that there is solid proof of her manhood. They will just think that you are an idiot.
Now talking about personally, I don't personally actually have an opinion. There are enough rumors that speculating about it is worth some time. And certainly joking about it is just fine. Declaring it as a fact however will most likely make anybody not already in the club reject anything else you might claim as worthless.
Now, as far as I understand, wasn't the whole damn point of this "Great Awakening" to wake up AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to the fact that their government and legacy media at the very least can't be trusted, and that there really is a Deep State that is the one mostly running things?
If that is so, then giving declarations of "this is a FACT!" about things that can't be solidly proven yet and don't even have all that much to do with the previous part and more to do with your dislike of certain people is pretty stupid, IMO.
Talking about even the more out there stuff, speculating about them, joking about them, in order to raise at least some curiosity in those people who don't yet have any suspicions would be the route to go.
Don't you want them in? Not just play in your own echo chamber, but to get as many people as possible on your side?
If so, then offer as facts only what seems to be well proven, to the point that if your still sleeping coworker or family member or friend, or that stranger on internet, looks into it himself he is going to find things he can't dismiss easily.
And leave everything else to speculations and jokes.
Now let's see how many downvotes this gets.
Well, at least you're honest and straightforward about it. That's an upvote.