Re notables/bakers debate lb:
all lb:
>>4495053, >>4495135, >>4495141, >>4495226
>An explanation is definitely not an apology.
>I like it when bakers explain things. I learn from those explanations. Helps me be a better anon.
^^THIS^^
Simple, laser-sharp, unimpeachably logical explanations are what the chans are known for. They're how we ALL become better anons, and a big reason Q chose us. We can't let shills talk us out of objective standards and clear communication using their usual tricks of emotional appeal and pilpul. Notice how they always pathologize our desire to do a thing they don't like. In this case, they turn using logic & willingness to defend a position into "don't be so apologetic, weakling!" This is a strawman argument. Defending a position is not weak. Neither is having the confidence to hear and respond to criticism of a position. It indicates strength of character in both senses: either sure enough of one's read to be able to justify it, or secure enough in one's ego to be willing to admit a mistake. In both cases, it shows willingness to sacrifice self and ego for the higher value of truth.
Ty baker for welcoming and responding to feedback in a straight-forward, efficient way.
And ty anons for helping bakers do it.
Shills won't stop searching for cracks, but if we hold the line, they'll just be impotently battering an impenatrable united front.