filtered all red text plus all who respond by ID and . . . there is no one else in the bread but me?
this one makes a stupid statement
I call it stupid because I assume it's a shill and I'm trying to insult it.
If I got ti wrong then so what?
a real anon would be tough enough to accep the criticism.
but it says 'evil symbols'
NOOO
the USE might serve EVIL but the symbols are arbitrary.
in some other context, with people who aren't psyopped, the symbols are used for other purposes.
someone who is that daft on to the purpose of symbols and their use ought not chime in with statemenst that use false assumptions.
THE USE
might be for evil
the symbols themselves? they have no power at all
you don't really beleive that symbols are 'evil'?
they might be used to say stuff that seems evil or give a sense of creepiness but you must understand that
It's all in the head.
were you just asking a leading question before.
I knew that if you were anon you would take no offense at my disection of your assumptions.
so: are 'symbols' evil or
is evil done with symbols?
I say that evil is done with the symbols and the very same symbols, themselves have no power or life on their own. The 'thought' of 'evil' is put into them. That could be called 'grooming' or 'ideation'
go on . . .
-
turn off images
-
take off glasses so it's all a blur
-
scroll down page and filter ID+ all redtext posts.
-
put glasses back on.
Symbiotics and the metalanguage of discussing language is a well known and old-school approach to understanding how communications work.
dead things can be used to mean something, and that meaning might seem sinister.
It's just stuff. It has no 'good/bad' about it.
the USE of it is what we see.
those who constantly put up omminous graphics and tell you it's powerful and evil and they have control because of it . . .
even those people are not, themselves, evil.
they are doing evil stuff, many will say.
but they can be reformed.
It's simple old school common sense.
TY to whoever is handling the storm of mean and vile images.
now I say 'mean and vile images' but it would be commonly understood by all that the images are, infact, not conscious and thus meanness is not a part of them.
and so I mean that there is some use by a person of those images, which is wrong or mean, to me and to very many others.
and so saying that the images are mean gives them no personality. It's talking about the personality of the ones who would post such horrific stuff.
People are not confused.
but when we discuss 'evil', often the fear makes people confused.
echoing fear porn
no . . . wait
no . . . wait
wait so . . .you're echoing fearporn
so the fear virus is echoed and that is also fear porn?