>>2029856

@MODS, OP, Q, please see my response in this thread: >>2029878

An anon raised a valid point of contention with a photo posted by Q, and it was anchored (censored) before satisfactorily evaluated. I URGE you not to let the avoidance of cognitive dissonance blind you to reason. I too hope that his point of contention is invalid, but I am distraught by the ease with which the point was removed in order to cultivate this online following.

If the above doesn’t compel you, then maybe this will: you will stand above all other political online groups if you can demonstrate the humility and rationality necessary to carefully evaluate objections and move on. This could be positive PR!

http://archive.is/a1G6v

Whatever happened to PROJECT PELICAN?

>>2029996

Okay this is a good start. Here’s a (you).

Anyone disagree? The original contention was this matched, what, a stock photo? Can we get the original stock photo and the original Q photo in one post? We need a dialectical debate here, no emotions involved. A real patriot evaluates the evidence.

>>2029981

>hey dumbfag

Poor rhetoric and a cheap ad hominem attack at best, which only hurts your position unnecessarily by making you look emotional and unwilling to entertain opposing viewpoints. I suggest educating yourself on how to communicate effectively.

> I guess you don't seem to understand that the curtains have rods on the top and bottoms and this is GOVERNMENT stuff so no things aren't going to move much. I've been in Government offices where I swear everything was identical 10 years apart.

Modest argument, my doors have hinges and even my least used ones change appearance sometimes. Perhaps a more suitable argument for you would be the order of the office COMBINED with a likely proximity in time between the two photos =appearance of no changes.

Still not convinced.

>>2030213

Friendo, you will learn quickly that emotional triggering is a tactic employed by shills.

Also, by responding to them, you are giving them training data. Think how a lib should appropriately respond to an antagonistic (or trolling post) by a “Pede”.

>>2030244

Believe it or not, although I’m not a “true believer” (never will be), I’m a useful potential ally of this board. I came from 8pol, 4pol prior to that, and gaming, Wikileaks, and conspiracy forums prior to that. I’ve been lurking the communities with this sentiment for about 8 years, and have found that honesty and even a playful sense of respect go far.

I’ve watched viral movements come and go, and am pointing out ways I think the community can improve. Did I trigger you somehow?

>>2030337

>nobody "believes" in Q shill

Continuing to engage reasonably without taking offense to your name calling so as to set an example. See:

>>2030334

>compares Q to Jesus

What I’m suggesting is similar to this anon’s post referencing Diogenes, who legend has it was unmoved from his intent actions even by Alexander the Great:

>>2030317

That stoic anons are more effective stalwarts against oppressive regimes than are fanatics, precisely because they are A) unintuitively charming as hell, and B) hard to co-opt.

By using this forum and calling yourself an Anon you are by default associating yourself with the legacy of the old anonymous movement. To distance yourself from it with timid and weak discourse like that is unwise, in my opinion. I only take an unwelcome stand and spend my time here because this movement is so far well timed and well memed, and has the chance to bring “normies” into our effective way of online cooperation and fact finding. This will result in far better outcomes than to simply unite the right and provoke hysteria by blindly banding around a hero and ostracizing those willing to engage in patient debate.

There are effective and ineffective ways to seek truth. They typically clash with the effective ways of spinning up a mob movement. Let’s not drift off course.