It’s not so much that I’m trying to play devil’s advocate as I am trying to demonstrate the challenges I sometimes have to face in understanding Q stuff when discussing it. For instance:
I understand you're trying to play "Devils advocate", here but in no way shape or form is the establishment interested in spreading conservative, pro gun values across the cultural sphere.
That goes counter to the notion that there is a silent majority of conservatives or any sort of secret group like Q working behind the scenes right now.
Maybe it’s not the establishment that is spreading the message.
You absolutely believe that Q is making theatrical moves like “optics.” You just don’t believe he’d use those tactics in such an evil way.
I’m asking you to abstain from that conclusion and analyze this situation as if you didn’t believe that Q was necessarily the good guy/group that everyone here assumes.
You assume every story that makes conservatives or conservatives values look bad in the media is a performance or false flag. So, for a moment, can you analyze this situation as if Q might also be using false flag attacks in order advance the Q narrative? Is there a reason that you don’t beyond faith that Q is the good guy?
That’s an honest question, truly.
Because good research can’t be done exclusively by a community of people who already accept the same conclusion.
It’s the same reason I don’t see much use in talking to people I agree with. Not much to learn from such conversation.
It’s not deflection, because it speaks to your faithfulness in conversing with me. Every post I make, you’re there within minutes.
And then proceed to downvote every single comment in my history, just for good measure.
That is suspicious behavior. It’s not how people discuss things in good faith. It is weird that you have such an incredibly quick response time to someone you are constantly calling a complete idiot and beneath you.
Make up your mind. Either my arguments deserve the creepy amount of attention you dedicate to finding them, or I’m not worth your time.
But as I’ve said multiple times, I have agreed to not engage with you as much, and I’m holding to that. You’re welcome to continue following my heels around the boards and sending me hidden links to scrape my VPN address in my messages if you like.
Zeitreise, did this comment make your phone buzz? Do you have it set up to notify you when I type literally anything on this site?
I’m trying to figure out how you haven’t posted for ten hours, and then I post in a thread you didn’t participate in, and you respond twice within a few minutes.
Your interest in my posts is flattering, but I am worried that this, plus all the traffic you’re constantly sending to Reddit from here in your links, is going to make people suspicious you’re not being genuine here. It’s already an accusation I’ve had to fend off more than once. I don’t want to get banned on account of people think you’re my second account I use as a foil.
I don’t know if I can ask this without people getting mad, but let me try.
Have any of you research anons who dig into the microscopic details of every situation investigated this one for tomfoolery?
A liberal Q movement might suggest this worked out all too perfectly. Right after a major school shooting with an AR-15, we see another attempted shooting that was unceremoniously stopped by a “good guy with a gun?”
It doesn’t seem like an awfully convenient narrative?
A dude who owns an AR-15 is apparently so bad at shooting it that he can fire into a crowd and not hit anyone? Then be killed by a convenient passerby?
And he was so easy to set off that asking him to slow down for children in the street was enough to make him homicidal?
You’re going to accept the news narrative that easily?
What if the shooter was MKUltra’d by conservative bad guys and made to do this so he could be taken down and set the narrative that AR-15’s aren’t scary and every civilian should be packing heat? What if he was planted there and the woman was expecting him?
Because this was just a movie being played out?
Why isn’t every detail of this case being analyzed by Q people for theater trickery? Why don’t I see the same level of analysis here by Q people making sure that your side isn’t also (or the only ones) pulling dirty tricks and false flags?
You ask why this isn’t in the news. Fair question. Equally fair: why will this thread likely be forgotten by the end of the day here on the boards when there is such a wealth of information here about a potential conservative murder conspiracy behind this story?
They should have killed that show when he was fired from it. The last season was such a strange and awkward ending.
Blocking people from accessing the site? Not as far as I can tell. I don’t use Twitter or have an account and can’t test logging in, but I can see tweets on the site just fine through VPN. Just tested it now.
If you’re talking about the title thing I have on my username, I have nothing to do with that. The mods added it themselves.
Probably not much different than your objective. Research and communicate with others regarding if and how things might relate to the theories that Q proposed and Q supporters believe about the world.
Besides, intelligent people enjoy talking with people they disagree with. People who agree with me have little chance of teaching me something new and making me smarter as a result.
He was 18. He didn’t need permission or supervision to buy guns.
That's a fair point, in a sense. But I think it's just a semantic thing. Here:
I assume that people under extreme stress (such as being in a gunfight or facing the possibility that your child was murdered) may behave in ways that seem irrational.
They will not always do the things you think you would do under those circumstances, because the brain does weird stuff when subjected to survival pressures.
A woman I did martial arts with was a black belt, and an excellent fighter. She was raped largely without a fight, because her brain shut down from the shock. She could have killed her attacker with her bare hands, but you never know how you're going to react under that kind of pressure until you're in it.
So, essentially, I try not to do Monday Morning Quarterbacking on what a "reasonable" person would have done under circumstances that could potentially make ANYONE unreasonable.
The new policy will order its federal officers to intervene if they see any officers engaged in excessive force and to administer medical aid injured by police.
“Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others,” the memo stated. “Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances.”
Which part of these "elaborately vague" rules are you worried about being used to target conservatives for maiming and killing?
Here's the whole memo, for reference.
I try not to assume people react rationally in intense situations like gunfights or awaiting news of a potentially dead child.
I will defer to you on the team responsible for taking down the shooter, though. I used the term “SWAT” colloquially in reference to the tactics team, but I know border patrol was there, and if it was their team, I accept the correction.
From what I've read so far (on a recent and probably developing situation), the shooter barricaded himself in a classroom.
That classroom was then breached by a tactics team and the shooter was killed inside.
If you've ever watched bodycam footage of a police shooting, you'll notice that after every police shooting, they usually handcuff the perpetrator immediately.
And many times, people who die from gunshot wounds, even severe ones, are still living when those handcuffs are put on.
So the shooter probably was "taken into custody" by that SWAT team, even if he was filled with bullets at the time. He was likely handcuffed and detained until he was pronounced dead.
Which, I would guess, is what happened here as far as the confusing timeline.
I don’t believe I did, but I am not going to force the issue.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but there is a difference between sea-lioning and having a high standard for proof of the most major crime in US history.
If you want me to support the arrest and hanging of most of our government, media, and industry, and return power to a guy I’d rather not be in power, then I am not granting you a single benefit of the doubt. The consequences are simply too much.
I mean, consider it in the reverse. What standard of proof would you require to disown Q and accept that the world isn’t quite the way he and Trump described?
Would it be pretty high? Because you’ve invested and committed to the reality you’ve accepted based on the evidence you’ve seen?
I’m in the same boat. Everyone is when it comes to the Q stuff.
Luckily, we’re on a research site where we can consider all points of view in an attempt to understand truth about Q.
Don’t let people here trick you into thinking “not being convinced by an argument justifying mass executions” is the same thing as being a troll.
Otherwise, you’ll find yourself convinced that everyone who disagrees with you is being disingenuous, and there’s no faster way to destroy a research site than to allow that philosophy to fester.
They didn't, in fact, ban the use of the words.
From the article:
It is important to keep this guide in its proper context. The guide does not call for mandatory rules in schools barring the use of these terms. The guide is not calling for Father’s Day cards to be converted into “Happy Person with Testes Day.” However, we have seen such guides cited as the basis for sanctions, including allegations of hostile classroom environment or micro aggressive speech.
Headlines, headlines, headlines.
If you’re talking about the Nov 2021 law, then no, it’s not illegal to for Florida businesses to require a vaccine.
It’s illegal for them to require a vaccine without offering possible exemptions.
http://laws.flrules.org/2021/272
A private employer may not impose a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for any full-time, part-time, or contract employee without providing individual exemptions that allow an employee to opt out of such requirement on the basis of medical reasons, including, but not limited to, pregnancy or anticipated pregnancy; religious reasons; COVID-19 immunity; periodic testing; and the use of employer-provided personal protective equipment.
So if Universal Studios is offering these types of exemption applications, then they don’t seem to be running afoul of this Florida law.
Oh,if it will be disproven it will be... and you will know. We all will be,and this will ABSOLUTELY not be funny at all...
How would you know when Q has been disproven?
Who could tell you that you'd believe? What loser nobody could be exposed as Q that you'd believe? What great failure could occur that could NOT be considered "optics" or "look weak when you're strong"?
What exactly would the signal be? Who would have to tell you that it was time to give it up?
Is there anybody? Is there any such signal?
So when you say that the Q community will know if they've been lied to... I don't know how. I imagine that everyone has their own personal deadline for Q, and as time marches on, people will hit those deadlines.
Some people had deadlines back on election day, and on Dec 14th, and on Jan 6th, and on Jan 20th, and so forth. Some people have deadlines in the future. Some people don't know their deadlines and will just "know it when they see it", I guess.
But at the end of the day, even if Q is 100% a lie, I don't expect any "great awakening" for Q people. More likely than not, by 2025, if the Plan hasn't occurred, I imagine the Q community will have lost the people it's going to lose one at a time over years, and the rest will transition to some new movement in the same spirit as this one.
But, that's falsifiable. We'll see what happens by 2025.
If Q was not a lie, and was actually a perfectly-honed plan contained by absolute secrecy, then yes, I can't disprove that.
I also can’t disprove the possibility that Bernie Sanders was a Trump fan and with perfect secrecy and planning ran in the 2016 election solely to ensure Trump’s victory. I can’t disprove every piece of evidence to the contrary as being “optics” or “disinformation.”
There are countless unlikely possibilities that COULD be true if the stars aligned.
My problem with the Q theories has nothing to do with whether they're possible.
It has to do with whether or not they can actually be disproven.
Trump fucking up the SCOTUS picks doesn't mean he's not a strategic genius. It just means he's running a sting.
The Lindell symposium being... less than earthshattering doesn't mean he was a fraud. It means that the symposium was designed to freak out the Deep State and make them "expend ammo."
The AZ audit falling flat doesn't mean that the Plan has failed. It means that this was always necessary to prove the incompetence of the courts.
If every failure has a reason and every piece of evidence against you is fabricated by an All Powerful Enemy, then I can't possibly disprove Q. At all. Period.
If they can't be disproven, and it turns out Q is a lie, then you have absolutely no way of figuring that out. Because it's a theory that can't be disproven.
And that would worry me. I don't like being tied to non-falsifiable beliefs, because if I am wrong, there is no way for me to ever discover that using evidence. Such a belief is sustained by faith, and can only be lost through faithlessness.
No, mostly only you, and partly because I promised the mods to do my best to keep things from blowing up all the time between you and me.
I am always happy to converse with others in good faith.
So you're posting a hypothetical entertained neither by D'Souza nor the sheriff as an explanation for how D'Souza only kinda misled people here, and consider me an idiot for not having faith in your hypothetical that the sheriff was shown a rough copy of this movie a year ago?
Well, "this topic" is one of the main topics of Q discussions, and this is a Q research board, and I did research on this topic...
So... yeah. I put a "grand effort" into researching the topics that are discussed here.
As should everyone. :)
Well, that’s sort of the Q mantra, isn’t it?
“It could easily be true.”
Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.
Isn’t this just hypothetical?
As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.
Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?
He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.
If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.
If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.
I’m not doing D’Souza’s work for him.
It is worth considering, though, that if you lost your child in one of these shootings, and knew there was an entire community of skeptics who might be interested in showing up to the funeral to check out their theory that the shooting was a hoax while you were grieving, would you publicly list when and where the funeral would be?