>>13531549 (lb)

the methods and language of debunking the 'power' of these 'words' is hampered by the meta language of the discussion.

vocalizing or including, even in quotations, those phrases and words echos them.

People here the echo and say "someone's using a censored word"

and the ones who are operators at their desks with the degrees and their for-life-status as a special special then turn it into 'you used the bad word' and bitch scold.

so the one who understands that methods and tactics, and merely tries to solve it by demystifying it with a spurge-splaining is attacked.

and the message isn't given

so the meta language must take away the actual words or phrases and give them as a meta.

a variable.

it could be any slur word

which one?

it could be any group.

which one, you really mean us

how vane of you to think it's about you and yours

it goes on.

so instead of it being about how these things are done, it becomes a grudge thing.

so I get it.

and that bothers 'them'

who them?

read the last bread

and loook at this one: >13531550 (lb)

he makes it up and escalates it.

the bad isn't just the bad but also the worse

and in fact neither.

and there is no way to know what the person really is. It's not any, it's all, it's nothing.

it just knows that it puts the slur on someone, tags them with it, and then it escalates it.

they are just as they describe the people who they claim they do not like to be like.

they don't have to be any of it, but the description of what they say others do is what they do.

>>13531583

two years ago this week

we all tried to 'save' the famefag baker

saying 'don't fame fag'

and then we had captcha

>>13531639

someone pretends to 'hate' some person or group

they project onto that person, and describe that person or group.

they project, that doesn't mean that they 'are' that type. they are pretending to be.

but their descriptions of what they say that the person or group does is usually what the projector does themself.

they invent a 'worst' and then they tag it to a 'worser'

so it's not just a blah blah-b;ah word bad-slur

it's a blah-word badslur worst-casechild hurter.

see?

no one wants to give training material on how to be a degenerate name-calling slur-word shill.

>>13531858

you pretended to be Nero, but now you are sounding like Mussillini.

>>13531862

Benito Mussolini

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

>>13531858

>>13531869

I'm not talking about History

I'm talking about shill tactics and how haters escallate and tag further slanders.

I'm speaking in a meta language of philosophical linquistics.

you're doing grudge farming and hate-mongering.

I describe what you do.

>>13531869

oh, pardon me anjel

I thought you were the other poster asking about something else.

Ignoring History is stupid.

You don't know who Nero or Mussulini are?

seriously watch some documentaries.

the past is not dead

the spirit of foolishness lives on.

you demonstrate it.

>>13531922

I noticed that in the 1980s

>>13531925

?

a misplaced aphorism

>>13531960

he admits he know not who either Nero or Mussolini are so . . .

he's not a well-studied young man.

>>13531965

you at least study Mexican History?

Or Southwest History?

how can you be president if you don't know the story of the nation?

>>13531966

correction:

studious would be correct. replace 'well studied' with 'studious'

the good looking young man did not know History.

>>13531982

What does 'Feds' mean?

who are they?

officers of the Administration?

do they represent the people or a private enterprise?

if there was a raid the data needs to be more specific: which 'Feds'

there are parrotings on the 'Federal' raid

but the sources don't say which office.

as part of an 'investigation' and dealings in Ukraine says CNBC

with a search warrent at his appartment.

they don't say what office or court or agency is doing it.

>>13532196

do you really need to have it explained?

"how do you introduce evidence?"

is often stated.

think about it.

if the three letter has the data, well, that doesn't mean that the court can legally use it.

if the data arrives from a court order by a judge?

can they use it then?

what do you think the answer is?

I'm not a lawyer, I assume it could be 'yes, then they can use the data as evidence'

but I might be wrong.

>>13532247

ah, an insult bot shill

it wasn't going to matter what answer you got, you were going to use it as a noose to try and shame or humilate a real chatty person, an interested citizen.

the cavot of 'oh I could be wrong' if used to insult later actually shows you for what you are.

someoen who is only there for the snarky one-liner, used to humiliate.

it speaks of you and what you are about.

filtered.

you know nothing about what 'Anyone who thinks' thinks.

stop slurring people with a deprecated word.