Wouldn't that imply an awfully massive conspiracy?
Yes.
And what if releasing them proves something that saves thousands of other people worldwide?
What did the old reference books say was the correct pronoun to use for a singular, unknown person when avoiding assumptions?
lol ok
I'll keep on with accuracy, and you can keep on with your reactionary irrationality.
Now answer my question.
Well, I half expected the first part. Just didn't think if you said it, you'd also have the intellectual honesty to apply it to your own comment. So props for that.
But now the problem is, what is the basis for your claim on "they" if not the dictionary?
No, because I'm using the singular 'they' which is widely accepted.
How about this: What word do you use to refer to someone of an unknown gender without making an assumption? If it's not "they", what is it? If it doesn't exist, I propose we make it "they" right now.
The singular "they" is certainly centuries old, if that's what you meant...
KEK
No, that's not why I do it.
I prefer accuracy to assumptions, and you crying about enabling trannies isn't going to change that.
Merriam-Webster definition of ‘they’
b —used with a singular antecedent to refer to an unknown or unspecified person An employee with a grievance can file a complaint if they need to. The person who answered the phone said they didn't know where she was.
c —used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.
Only at the bottom after the numerous other accurate definitions do they start talking about muh trannies.
Certainly not a good look, but it's possible he's just playing their game in terms of following their script.
There's no double standard, because clearly anyone who thinks certain celebrities are on our side don't also think this dumb shit:
'They were celebrities. Therefore they ate babies and worshipped.. things'
It isn't the same people saying these two things, as much as the people who love to cry "double standards!" want them to be.
No, not opposing them is how we got here. They aren't the same thing.
Anti-vax is only rational at this point, but I agree this is an extremely premature position to take, and this thread has its fair share of confirmation bias.
Amazing plan! Make him King with the stipulation that he abolish the IRS and immediately step down, or be summarily executed for failure to do so.
People can genuinely and honestly change their opinions and come into new beliefs...
Unless you're Ted Cruz, then your opinion changes weekly based on whatever you think your base wants to hear.
Yea, interesting he's writing his name in the same way he's writing "it was Russian disinformation" and "bad stuff", both of which are implied to be bullshit.
I suppose Russia could be read as a quote, but "bad stuff" seems to simply be the implication that the "bad stuff" they put out on him wasn't valid/was fake and gay.
In any case, anyone writing a name like that is odd, and even more so when you're doing it to your own name.
We've only had 1 blatantly stolen presidential election. Some knew before then, but 2020 was the first time they made it so obvious, and the first time one of the candidates said or did anything and brought it into the public consciousness.
Pointing out why the media call us "QAnon" is perfect to point out to any outsiders who have even a hint of intellectual curiosity. Show them how it's used as slander and make them question why the media would lie to them.
In the end, it's not about expecting people to magically know stuff, but we certainly shouldn't use their terms ourselves and should kindly point out to outsiders using them that they know not what they speak of.
I've never seen a response to this. Plenty of people willing to say it's some preposterous, ridiculous fantasy that people like to cling to, but never seen an explanation of why it's actually so "ridiculous" to begin with.
On the level of ridiculous sounding theories, I feel like JFK Jr alive ranks far under 'a satanic pedophile cabal rules the world', but we all acknowledge that truth and no one tries to flippantly dismiss it as "preposterous" or "fantasy".
There's a difference between trying to shut down speech you don't like and trying to keep the forum focused.
Just because someone wants the forum to stay on topic doesn't mean they support banning any mention of a certain topic all over the internet or in real life.
Easier to buy by the corrupt is the problem.
Read the Q posts and you'll know.
The short of it is the conflation of nonsense theories with what Q actually said. This allows them to drive normies away from something they think is crazy, when in reality Q never said any of that shit, it was anons.
No matter how much you continue to push this narrative, it won't be true.