FIGHT
What gets you banned [here]?
What does NOT?
Do anons question these things?
Or blindly accept authority?
"SHEEP NO MORE"…?
Or not?
Who is asleep?
pathetic, loserbot
Absolutely not "overthinking".
Using a shopped pic sets up an EASY discrediting narrative.
"Alt right extremist pushing lies with fake pics".
This is so obvious that it needs no explanation.
So the real question is WHY Q posted that.
What is the reason?
Is it related to why we are [here]?
What is this "anon" trying to do?
Is this "anon" organic? Try to interact with it– can it respond like a human?
What is it doing?
Once you recognize how much fakeness there is, the whole game gets revealed.
This "anon" is pushing two things:
'jimmy' is "a TOOTS wannabe"
and
The posts referring to 'jimmy' are "autoposted by a script".
Are PEOPLE fooled by this low-effort attempt?
I tend to doubt it.
But I will answer nonetheless:
What is 'jimmy'?
Why would "anons" try to conflate 'jimmy' with a fake post trope? The reasons are obvious.
'jimmy' is used as a symbolic name for the system of FAKENESS, as revealed in the jimmy AI spills.
Why would "anons" feel a need to be defensive, and cover this up?
Is the game becoming clear?
And, of course, would the bot system try to PROJECT and call those that expose it bots?
Naturally.
This anon is NOT a bot, and would gladly be tested to show it.
The "anons" that spawn in unlimited numbers to attack this anon, however, are not human, and are helpless to demonstrate otherwise.
Hence, by paying attention, the SYSTEM OF FAKENESS telegraphs its every move.
It does NOT want anons thinking about 'jimmy'.
The reasons are obvious.
Stop. The pic is shopped. That is all. Stop this fake stupidity.
If you look closely at Pelosi's words and her body language in her comments the other day, you get some clear hints about what is going on.
At 4:11, referring to the Democratic caucus, she says "our unity is our power"– for a second, right as she says this, a look of mockery flashes on her face.
This flashing look of mockery occurs again at 4:21, when talking about the results she expects for the Democrats: >>4087696
The uncomfortable and unenthused looks on her colleagues' faces, and these subtle moments of mockery suggest that the words are not quite so true as they would seem. The Democrats did not nominate her "because they are so unified". Something else is going on.
The most telling part starts at 6:35, with Nancy talking about working with POTUS. At 6:38 she hesitates, and looks, up, then grimaces and looks down, before referring to "my power"… This noticable pause and facial complication clearly indicates that there is some hidden emotion relating to her own power.
When we look at how quickly and confidently POTUS suggested Pelosi would be the speaker again after the midterms; compare Pelosi's manner and attitude to Lindsey Graham's; and keep in mind the basic idea that POTUS et. al. are using leverage to make deals and make progress in draining the swamp, then we have a very good framework for explaining Pelosi's ease of victory, her overall air of cheerfulness (freedom), her colleagues' apparent ill-ease, and her nonetheless stumbling at the memory of her own power (no longer independent), and her apparent subtle facial mockery of her colleagues.
I.e. it's happening.
If I am a bot, will you test me?
Why not?
Can bots call humans bots, and convince humans?
Can human judge these things for themselves?
Are bot posts limited, clumsy, and devoid of creativity in every way?
Do bots IMITATE humans slavishly, but fall silent when their weak tactic fail?
Does this doom the system of FAKENESS to spectacular failure?
Can you cope with human verbal intelligence, or do your limitations leave you helpless?
What can you post now that is not a recycled or imitated attitude?
Try loserbot. Keep trying and trying, and fail more.
Cheers!
It's an image that appears to be making a case that images purportedly of Mars are actually of Egypt.
Why are you testing me, rather than other "anons"?
How do YOU tell, prima facie, what "anons" are likely bots?
Are you a patriot?
If a system of AI fakery were being used to control the internet, emulate whole segments of political opinion, and completely smother organic dissent (AMONG OTHER THINGS)– then what, in your opinion, would be an appropriate response to it (such a system).
Thank you "organic anon".
What gets "anons" speaking out [here]?
Is the board controlled by the peolple?
Does THIS get "anons" speaking out?
But "defending 'ebot'", or impugning anons for "being obsessed with AI"– THIS motivates "anons" to speak up… right?
This is organic?
The PEOPLE need to speak up and take control here.
FIGHT
What is this "anon" pushing?
Once you realize HOW MUCH FAKENESS there is [here], then the system TELEGRAPHS its lies over and over and over.
Is 4chan organic anymore?
Was it a threat?
To whom? Organic "hacktivism"?
Was a means of controlling /pol/ devised?
Is "the famous /pol/ anti-semitism" organic?
Would it be?
Does the system of fakeness take a small joke and whip it up into a fake trend?
Think "NPC meme"?
Think "mutt meme"?
Think "merchant meme"?
Is /pol/ controlled?
If this board is frequently IDENTICAL to /pol/ is it controlled?
Is the anti-semitism that is FAKE on /pol/ not only fake, but absolutely ABSURD [here]?
And yet is frequently pushed?
Does BO even COVER for it, and allow it to flourish?
Then why are we [here]?
There IS a reason– what is it?
FIGHT anons.
you are just tired
"We can guide, but you must uncover the truth organically"
What are you waiting for?
If WE must uncover the truth organically, why would YOU be "demoralized" because SOMEONE ELSE is not spoonfeeding you?
Why are you here?
To be spoonfed?
How are you FIGHTING to uncover the truth?
"anon"?
Can you read text in images that are posted here?
How would you possibly know that?
Is there any risk of ENCOURAGING PASSIVITY, if, perchance, we are not "already there/here"?
Are you a patriot?
What truth have we uncovered organically?
How do you know what Q was referring to?
Do we wait to be spoonfed?
Why are we [here], on a board awash in FAKERY?
"anon"?
Even if you can see it is fake when you THINK FOR YOURSELF?
Not the question.
Fake pic is discrediting, hence HORRIBLE strategically to use.
If Q posts the pic, that IMPLIES that it is legit.
But, in fact, it is NOT legit.
Put the pieces together.
(not you, bot. I mean that for PEOPLE)
I don't need to explain to people how that will be used to discredit us. It is perfectly obvious.
Using a photoshopped image makes it easy to discredit what is being claimed, and hence makes ZERO sense.
Unless your purpose is to PREVENT truth from spreading…
Now in light of the preceding, I ask again, WHY did Q post it?
Get out.
As if he would have posed for a photograph like that.
It's OBVIOUSLY fake.
I believe that is the whole point.