Brave. I like it. Question the narrative. It's important to do so.

Despite the fact that Q was most emphatic about getting away from group think, after almost 4 years without Q posting on any sort of regular basis, a lot of group think has sunk in.

Many pedes simply take it as an axiomatic truth that Ms Obama is a 'transexual'. There is circumstantial evidence, sure, and a decent amount of it, but no real conclusive evidence or proof (i.e. a DNA analysis, for example, would be conclusive, or an admission by the person in question). Also, note, there is a lot of fabricated 'evidence', too, further muddying the waters.

The temptation to move in one's mind from "circumstantial evidence" to "conclusive proven fact" is a powerful one, but intellectually honest folks will be clear about the difference, and even if they have their own conclusions or beliefs (nothing wrong with that), they'll acknowledge the margin or potential error and room for doubt.

Brave. I like it. Question the narrative. It's important to do so.

Despite the fact that Q was most emphatic about getting away from group think, after almost 4 years without Q posting on any sort of regular basis, a lot of group think has sunk in.

Many pedes simply take it as an axiomatic truth that Ms Obama is a 'transexual'. There is circumstantial evidence, sure, but no real conclusive evidence. Also, a lot of fabricated 'evidence', too.

The temptation to move from "circumstantial evidence" to "conclusive proven fact" is a powerful one, but intellectually honest folks will be clear about the difference, and even if they have their own conclusions or beliefs (nothing wrong with that), they'll acknowledge the margin or potential error and room for doubt.