Tyb
Hey look at that, I'm that anon and we posted right after one another.
how far to take it?
what's the point?
>You tell me, you're the one that decided to copy mannerisms
Well I think you're going to be out of luck then, because when it comes to your perceptions, I don't have anything to do with them nor can I control them.
If you see similar, different or other 'mannerisms', then well, ok, it's nothing to do with me really. You're going to have to reconcile all that on your own.
For me, I just post what I want how I want, and don't worry about how the posts are 'perceived' as similar or different than other anons. Gosh that would be way too much to worry about.
>divide themselves
Yes this, and it's pernicious. The loudest professional 'anti-defaming' orgs are run by people who have first divided themselves from the rest of humanity, and then they claim to see anti-ethnicity where there isn't any. They're seeing their own selves.
does he even know what self-referential consistency requires?
He's advertising what he thinks of himself.
Maybe he needs to visit a doctor. He hates himself so much
>Sometimes you gotta
If what you describe as 'sometimes', happens all the time, wouldn't you be what you're ostensibly trying to stop from 'the other'?
Know what I think? I think you're attacking such patterns not because you want them to end, out of 'compassion' for anons, but rather, you're attacking them all the time because you're trying to eliminate your perceived competition, so that you're the only famefag/board personality.
You don't want 'other' famefag board personalities because you want to be an 'anti-famefag' board personality.
Isn't that the same exact pattern as the ADL? Tell the world you're there to stop defamation, all the while defaming people left right and center?
Sooooo post anti-Jew spam enough times and the world will think as true that the great awakening is driven by anti-semitism?
Muhjoo is a description of that repeat pattern.
It's silly to attack muhjoo reference as if what the word muhjoo is referencing isn't taking place.
It would be like attacking those repeatedly exposing election fraud, while ignoring the election fraud.
'muh' isn't isomorphic , with 'my' hence the 'muh'.
It's to denote the fact that some 'anons' are intentionally repeating a straw man so as to falsely portray this board, Q, and anons as 'anti-{what muh references}.
If 'my' was instead used, then the result would contradict the meaning of the utterance of the term.
If anons started saying 'my jew shills', it would convey the wrong meaning.
But carry on being super duper extra special ignorant in believing that anons aren't noticing your attempt to control anon dialogue.
Falsely portraying a term as owned or sourced or associated with 'clowns', in a desperate attempt to curry favor with gullible anons who then get tricked into doing what you want all along, to stop using certain phrases, is just sad.
anon will continue to say muhjoo, and not only that, but will use it moar precisely because it's being targeted with such low IQ attacks.
Hahah, you're like the guy everyone's making fun of trying to sound like he's in the same group of those making fun of you.
You're a 'gatekeeper'