Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

The discussion that bumped me into finding this short clip from bongino discussed the anti-Flynn agenda. (Up until recent times I've had a relatively dismissive attitude towards bongino, considering him perhaps close to controlled oppo, but certainly not anon level, active in the mainstream maga sphere.)

One of the key focuses of the live X discussion was specifically about gathering and compiling the factual evidence that refutes the "very troubling questions" that you allude to here. The tone, content and direction of the discussion felt very hinged and based to me. Folks who want to attack, destroy truth do not generally have open discussions about fact compilation.

Rather, the shills have a very pronounced approach and tone, in my experience. There is a very similar vibration. It hinges on accusation, triggering of emotional reactions vs engaging unemotional critical thinking.

Never substance, just angry grade-school name-calling nonsense from “name brand anons” and their satellites

Exactly what I see from the shill quarters, and specifically in their attacks against people like Flynn. Quite absent from the discussion I tuned in to, by the way.

I'm not particularly familiar with Guitaranon17, but I resonated with the perspectives, and moving through his feed I came across the clip from Bongino.

I'm not going to put Roger Stone and Flynn in the same bag.

I have had a LOT of information on Flynn since 2018, and the attacks bear plenty of the hallmarks of disinformation operations that only fools would deny are real and active in the Great Awakening and Truth spheres.

4 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

The discussion that bumped me into finding this short clip from bongino discussed the anti-Flynn agenda. (Up until recent times I've had a relatively dismissive attitude towards bongino, considering him perhaps close to controlled oppo, but certainly not anon level, active in the mainstream maga sphere.)

One of the key focuses of the live X discussion was specifically about gathering and compiling the factual evidence that refutes the "very troubling questions" that you allude to here. The tone, content and direction of the discussion felt very hinged and based to me. Folks who want to attack, destroy truth do not generally have open discussions about fact compilation.

Rather, the shills have a very pronounced approach and tone, in my experience. There is a very similar vibration. It hinges on accusation, triggering of emotional reactions vs engaging unemotional critical thinking.

Never substance, just angry grade-school name-calling nonsense from “name brand anons” and their satellites

Exactly what I see from the shill quarters, and specifically in their attacks against people like Flynn. Quite absent from the discussion I tuned in to, by the way.

I'm not particularly familiar with Guitaranon17, but I resonated with the perspectives, and moving through his feed I came across the clip from Bongino.

I'm not going to put Roger Stone and Flynn in the same bag.

I have had a LOT of information on Flynn since 2018, and the attacks bear plenty of the hallmarks of disinformation operations that only fools would deny are real and active in the Great Awakening and Truth spheres.

I have noted, however, that your particular reply starts out aggressive, argumentative and overlain with sophistry: "So your version is... " Version of what? Version of truth? Version of reality?

Already you have thrown the concept of truth and factual evidence out and replaced it with "versions". Which is what the Marxists debaters do. There is no truth. There are only versions of the truth.

"Q said ...." Thank you so much for informing me on what Q said. If you had not told me, I never would have known, obviously.... /s

Your presuppositional starting point is that I do not or have not done "my own research". You follow this up with "do some digging..."

I appreciate that in your comment, you are presenting you viewpoint, but that's what it is, but in my view, discussion isn't equitably advanced by starting from the outset using sophistry, borderline slurs, adopting uninformed presumptions re: the positions of people you are seeking to engage with.

I guess some of us might well be noticing how you engage from this point forward. I probably will.

Hey, have a nice day! /s

4 days ago
1 score