Yea, getting trump's side out on the tv. which is dead media propaganda that you have to pay for. If she wanted to reach more people, she would not be on TV
The greatest trick is thinking the 90% opinion is the 10% opinion and vice versa.
Look at TV ratings. It's over. I get trying to clean the dirtiest part of the room first (idiots who still watch TV) but people who still do it with what the numbers are today - on comped networks - are rightfully seen as not what they could be, at best.
Anyone with a decent channel on the internet does more than the TV idiots.
And you can't forward a TV clip in two clicks.
Just keeping with the times here, anon. TV is dead
Doesn't say so on Twitters is not the same as doesn't believe
Capitalism is voluntary mutually beneficial transactions
You probably shopped at fucking walmart today douche
And yet it's not ok for a website to allow donations or have ads for products that might interest visitors
Kloush
see how some of the posts skip proving the claim
donald trump didn't condemn trudeau
and move on to talking about why, or what that means?
i.e. the reason trump hasn't condemned trudeau is because ____
therefore the claim is implicit giving a layer of insulation from questioning it.
identify premise that is underneath the claim
i.e.
these cats are fun
assumes they are cats in the first place
I'd say ostracize or ignore
the false premises / implicit assumptions in this statement:
i don't use discernment
i think you GAF
i am about to try and stop you from watching what you want
that is not what i said
you made the claim that her use of the word suicide is proof that she is part of the scam
now you are afraid of anyone questioning your assumptions, which manifests itself as anger / attack
you didn't say 'the way her statement solidifies a narrative that this is suicide makes me suspicious of her intent'
See this convinces no one of your position, it just virtue signals to other narcissists that you will cooperate in blaming the victim
unless you have some sort of rational argument
a small set of articles discounts the existence of a word used
you allow an enemy to tarnish an entire set of truths
your argument is that mussolini used guns, so guns are bad
you are literally blaming a victim and then accusing me, when using an accurate description of that behavior, as 'wielding' and 'gaslighting'
that is projection that further proves my claim
I'm going to pre-empt any argument you may have
it will take the form:
i have incomplete information about a person's situation and motivations
yet you should believe what I am guessing about that person't motivations
i will present my theory alongside personal attacks on that person, who is widely considered by others to be a victim deserving sympathy
if you disagree i will be angry at you too
because i am a narcissist - so if you don't adopt my worldview as objective truth, you threaten my survival
Because school taught us to be good workers for war contractors
And didn't teach us how to start our own businesses and focus on meeting the needs of others in order to create wealth through innovation and ingenuity
There are those who don't want to lead, follow, or get out of the way
They want to criticize others instead
Yup
It's sad here locally. When someone is still wearing a mask, it's an indicator.
I saw one girl, she was the only one masked. And then the person she thought was cool walked in and wasn't wearing one. Science changed
true, but the default assumption is that an anonymous poster can't be verified between one post to the next
in this case, everyone seems to assume that that is not true - that Q must be an identifiable person or few people
yet I see no reason to believe this. where are the cryptographers and computer engineers and mathematicians explaining the probabilities?
In other words, it is the burden of proof of those who believe tripcodes are secure to prove that - prior to saying there is anything less than thousands of posters who make up the Q posts