>recall WE don't like your excuse for slaughtering sentient beings.
Sorry, did the master of genocide try to critique me on murder?
(Religious or paid-for shill, you know how neck deep your master is.)
Maybe try choosing better parents, but then again, terrible parentage is all you specialise in.
Do unto others, as you might say.
>the fact you fail the tirverted Turing Test has ME wondering about you actually
Sure. The fact I could interpret a threat to another person's wellbeing and have empathy to that cause of how they would feel (threatened or bullied) makes me the unfeeling robot. Nice inversion.
No dice, though.
>Did you know that autists often fail the Turing test, as 1) they tend to have more knowledge on a given subject than any equally relative human should know and 2) their curtailed emotional reactions and social sets.
Well, that puts me firmly back into that bracket. Thought I had escaped, probably just denial on my part.
But yes, a lot of normies (and even shills) refuse to believe people can possess diverse sets of knowledge to a near specialist degree. I like to think it's because they don't try in an age of information technology.
The Captain jab seems to be used across the board, aimed at me. Even on TTDDTOT (last few posts):
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1556735.html#q2409329
Regardless, wanted to sitrep (even if Qboards did delete the HK bot code I posted for anon to use):
Media Matters shills are heavily using the Cultist angle to discredit.
Media outlets have been told to diversify their talking points in order to try to disprove the 'stale repetition' rhetoric.
(By diversify, they mean write their own op-eds. It will still contain the following keywords: cult, Q, conspiracy, Qanon, violent/violence, threats/danger, hostile/aggressive/harm, pedophile/pedophilia, PizzaGate. 'Bonus' points if the op-eds mentions guns in a negative light or Trump in a negative light.)
The end goal is to earmark Q as a crazed cult of wackos (akin to Jim Jones). A couple of ways to refute:
1) Counter common/misleading misconceptions with rebuttals to stale arguments (for example: the comparison to PizzaGate is old hat, and the media never properly debunked that because their only source of refutement was the owner of Comet Ping-Pong, which is a bias and invalid source of information).
2) Busting the comparison between Q and a cult. This is not a cult. Anyone can leave Q boards at any time (no-one stopped me boycotting the Q boards when I chose to do so). There are no threats if you opt to leave. You are not showered with 'love bombs' if you opt to stay. You are not asked to do anything that is illegal or untoward (researching crimes is not illegal, and it's baffling that JOURNALISM OUTLETS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO DO RESEARCH WOULD CONDEMN RESEARCH).
3) Busting the fact that just because you call something a bunch of ad hominems/malicious names, does not make it intrinsically untrue (what it does make the article, however, is a bias political hitpiece).
4) Highlight the lack of appropriate citations backing up their claims. What is their proof this is a conspiracy? What is their proof this is a cult? What is their proof this is somehow violent? Antifa are violent but we don't hear them condemning antifa, why is that? Aren't they a violent conspiracy?
5) Refute the fact it's a mindless horde/follow the leader type nonsense. Everyone here does their own thing. We all do our own thing together. If Q is a cult, then places like the New York Times are just missing the poisoned kool aid.