the 'ironic posts' that include graphics like 'we are all . . . .now' where the . . . represents something odious and defaming, basically are what the opposition wants.

they will ignore the irony.

they will say 'see, they admit to this horrible personality defect, we told you so'.

and those who say 'ironic' things that are the opposite of what they really believe have been trained to be this way by 'humor' so they will speak what they do not really mean, and say things that get them put under suspicions, because the tyrants never admit that things are said as jest or irony.

so all of you who post such stuff, please stop or label it as satire and/or irony.

why do I tell you this? because I see it here every day, people who post try to train us to say what we don't mean, to post 'irony' that will be used against us.

>>20618911

we are all genius critics now!

it's ok when it isn't something odious that will be used to defame us.

but saying stuff, as if it will be taken as irony, like 'Of course we hate . . . . whatever group . . . ' or crap like that?

just don't say stuff that you don't mean that can be used in a context that is put against us.

if you're on a stage, or in a venue where the audience understands it's a performance, fine.

but if you're posting memes . . . that can be published anywhere, or put infront of a FISA judge: those memes will not necessary be put into the proper context of 'humor' and 'irony' before the judge. Or the judge, if he's not a fair person, might choise to ignore the irony.

if you joke, in an air port' "He has a bomb in his bag" ha ha ha.

the officials there have to take it at face value, as a threat.

and they will take you to the side and question you and search your bags if someone says that about you, ha ha ha. Chuckle drunk is not a good way to be in a forum of public debate where there are dangerous forces who want to put the clamp down on all opposition content.

>>20618922

not a 'we' telling people what to think, but a we of narrative.

get over yourself. Of course I know that there is not a 'we' with anons.

and my message isn't just about being here, but being anywhere.

>>20618922

not sure if you were directing that at me or the one to whom I was posting about . . .

anyway, I'll get over myself too.

sorry if sounded like a jerk in my response.