>>2686666

And if they're both dirty, the show will be substantially bigger, more tumultuous, longer, and more earth shattering than any of us hope.

The faggots, me included, larping about fbianon and the military insider coup for 2years will be shaken. Because it's not a coup. It's a fucking deep state civil war with every evil this fucking world has to offer and in 50 years when the next generation gets to read about it, we'll realize WW3 happened behind closed doors, won by a man half the country called an orange doofus.

>>2686691

Notables are a bad beachfront. But unwinnable fights are noble.

When 3 faggots can derail a system, it will be derailed. Is it worth it? How many people believing the notables to be sacred will it take to protect focused timed attacks by a group of 3 faggots with proxies?

How much of each threads 751 is the fight worth?

I've been thinking a lot about shills with infinite money. If i were trying to "control" optics on a msg board, what % of the 751 would i want to be me and mine? What number is the goal? What number is success? What number is reasonable?

The goal is 90%+. Overwhelming consensus. The success threshold is 50%. The reasonable number is between the first two.

Could you flood even this board to get 50% with 1 mil usd? I believe i could. I believe i could do it for a fucking year witha mil. They're idiots. Maybe it costs them 50 mil. Could they? Yes. Would they? Yes. Are they? Probably.

Weak fronts are weak fronts.

>>2686844

What can you possibly do? Make it require 5 faggots?

I honestly think notables should be abolished. But i watch the fight and hope you win. But i know that the control it takes for you to actually win is self defeating because it means peak control. Which corrupts itself.

What can stop X bad actors coming here, introducing a 'discrediting' larp, agreeing with each other that it is totally notable and you're compedfor suppressing their free speech and this super duper great idea that you fear? Which they then turn into the same old concernfagging about credibility. Which they then turn into a baker war. Which they then turn into a push for actual censorship controlled by the 'authority' they put in place to deal with the comped notables that started it all.

Every angle surrounding notables is a slippery slope. Isn't the anon chaos the obvious response to those slippery slopes? Isn't that why the fuck we were here to begin with?

>>2686933

Don't underestimate how many very serious people enjoy the pure debauchery of shitposting. And are gleefully happy to parse through the noise to find the signal.

>>2686967

Indeed.

Sometimes i wish i was something other than a pretty fucking smart nobody.

>>2686976

My better idea is the wild west. No approved ideas and the burden of credibility of ideas placed on each and every individual anon.

It's just as idealistic and unrealistic as the things I'm shitting on. I admit this.

Q is the trusted authority. I don't love it but i believe it. The hierarchy of credibility bestowed upon BO, then BV, then bakers, then Q oldfags is not the fucking answer. There is no answer. So Q can ramp up explanations and become the authority that does what snopes does for tards, or we can embrace chaos, accept a level influence that does not exceed snopes, and win with results. This means EMBRACING the ridicule and doubt and self doubt. And this weeds out 95% of humanity.

Turning the 4chan chaos thinktank into a clean efficient tool is a bridge too far and missing the fucking point. You can dance with chaos/the devil, but you can never wield it. It's the trademark of our enemies to control. And it's the trademark of anon to be uncontrollable. We're the tool. Like Assange. Anon doesn't become the authority. Anon flips tables and burns it down, usually self immolating in the process. Then anon retreats like Ceasar wouldn't. Because it's gay and normie now.

Manifest destiny won with the wild west at every front.