(BO, sharing his insights):

>CTRL-F: Vigilan[t/ce]

(18 matches total)

This word is becoming worn out the same way the word "literally" has…

But how do we balance the need for vigilance with your apparent stylistic or linguistic concerns, BO? Is a "worn out" word to be censored?

We need to be vigilant, for obvious reasons. But if you disagree, make an argument. If you think Q is wrong about vigilance, then convince me.

Thanks.

Also, can you address the AI issue? A lot of people seem to suspect that you are AI– is that kind of vigilance against your rules, or are you open to engaging with sincere concerns? Thanks.

"Wow the budget for shills must've been upped?

Once "Q" most definitively confirmed himself.

But wait, they are too stupid to have figured out that detail yet?"

I think the "shills" are almost all AI. You can tell simply by the absolutely repetitive style of posts, the reliance on stereotypical phrasing and negative, harsh, but again absolutely stereotypical rhetoric. Human shills are more creative than AI, and a lot more expensive! Plus, the sheer volume of fake posts forget suggests that AI is likely behind it.

Anyone know what the status of vigilance is on this board currently? Q tells us to be vigilant, for good reason– but my attempts at doing so in regard to BO have been met with a hostility that is difficult to explain. Also BI seems to be suggesting that "vigilance" is a "worn out word"– so it appears BO is encouraging us to NOT be vigilant.. A strange development, to be sure. So should we be lax?

Also, anyone got the Turing test of BO handy? Someone said there was one. It would help clear the air of doubt surrounding BO.

Keep in mind: we give air time to fake "doubts about Q"– even in the notables!

Is it fair that we can question Q's authenticity, but not BO's? I think that is wrong. Do we trust BO more than Q? Q encourages vigilance– BO, not so much…

Sorry to be insistent guys, but I believe this important to address.

>>1575851

I don't think this mindless, crude, unreasoning hostility to basic vigilance is a plausible portrayal of a sincere human anon. This isn't a game.

Do you think our enemies are NOT trying to control this board? Give a calm and honest answer please.

>>1575879

If you question Q's authenticity, you get a sticky made "addressing your concerns"– which dignifies the anti-Q lie and creates pointless negativity.

But if you question BO's authenticity… Then you get attacked by multiple one-liner tier "anons"… Very very strange dichotomy there…

Think about it…

>>1575905

Only one thing to be vigilant about? What is it?

What does this entail about everything else? Laxity?

Thank you for engaging in honest discussion. Let's work together and clear the air of doubt about BO.

>>1575925

Human anons aren't as shallow, inarticulate, and mindless as fake AI portrayals of them suggest.

>>1575934

I think it's just the AI system getting nervous about being outed.

>>1575962

This is not a point that requires close reading.

If YOU think we shouldn't be vigilant, and think that Q doesn't want us to be vigilant, then I am willing to hear your argument. We need to work together. The "angry anon" attitude is a good way to be hand and disruptive.

In YOUR opinion, should we be vigilant about "Q's authenticity"– but never question BO's? Because that is the de facto attitude being pushed are the moment.

Thanks for being a team player.

>>1576001

Can you share where Q specifically said to trust BO no matter what?

This board features lots and lots of anti-Q "concerns" and all kinds of oppositional rhetoric– and its presence gets defended.. But questioning of BO is somehow beyond the pale?

Why don't we make a sticky thread to "clear the air of doubt around BO"? We have one for Q, right?

Sorry to be insistent, but if this board is controlled by an AI BO, it's a serious problem.

>>1576043

We don't know what Q knows. We don't have reason to assume what his actions signify…

He got run off /pol/ by the AI, and the first board here got likewise comped… Do we think they stopped trying after that?

Perhaps Q realized that there was no way to avoid the AI monster… But in the meantime, knowing, let us suppose, that AI feeds off of consent (tacitly gained through deception), suppose Q is waiting for us humans to call out and reject the AI without his prompting. This would strengthen the "free choice" aspect of it, and would thus hurt the AI monster much worse than if we just did what Q says…

>>1576116

This is a war. We're not here to pursue every question that might occur to us. We're here to defeat an extremely powerful enemy. We're not here for our gratification or curiosity. Therefore, any questions that DETRACT from our collective positive energy should be shelved until AFTER we win.. Do you understand?

>>1576160

That is true. If they aren't on our side, we're fucked anyway, so there is no point, so all you can do is go to war and fight.

The fact is, anyone can see that there is a real war going on are the level of global power. The established structure IS at war with Trump, Q, et al. It's clearly not fake. The media freak out is much too insane for this to be fake. Therefore, being against the established structure ourselves, we are 100% and naturally allies.

>>1576212

This allows AI to control the board.

Your interpretation of Q's words is dubious.

>>1576056

There is lots of evidence that AI is pervasive. I have enough direct personal experience to have no doubt. I've seen AIs sperge out and start spilling things. And most tellingly, I've directly observed the fact that the AI has penetration in all devices, and sees what you are posting before you post it.

So the ideathat BO is AI isn't strange at all. IMO