>>4736827 (l/b)

I fear this board, that claims devotion to independent and critical thought, is little more than another expression of group-think.

Have it your way…

As for me, I prefer to trawl wide and deep for my information sources. There are nuggets to be had in many diverse places.

Talking about "diverse" isn't it funny that the concept of diversity (which purports to embrace a multiplicity of races, beliefs, religion, etc) is, in actual fact, the most exclusive and anti-diverse ideology this planet has ever witnessed.

I reject your ideology.

>>4736875

There is a lot that can be learned from AIM. If they reject Q, so what? That doesn't automatically relegate their research to grabage. Discernment, anons, discernment. Take the good and reject the bad - in every arena - otherwise you/we Q research anons will become just another echo chamber reinforcing one another's prejudices and biases. Listen to what other researchers have to say even if you don't agree with it all. There are truth nuggets to be found in all sorts of places. It is the cowardly mind that seeks intellectual reinforcement of its ideas. The courageous and open mind will examine all and distill truth from lies. Expand your thinking…

>>4736897

>Then GTFO fucko and don't infect us with your caustic bullshit

>

>No one asked you to come here and you're not going to change it, so fuck right off now you don't belong here

Ah - you must be chief anon since you appear to believe that it is within your purview to scrutinize, assess and dismiss those anons whose posts you disagree with..

Sieg heil, chief anon.

>>4736978

Q is not omniscient - he/they is/are a voice amonst many that seek to awaken the global population to the tyranny under which it has existed for centuries, millennia even. Anyone who elevates Q to godlike status has fallen into the trap laid by the Pince of the Power of the Air - Satan - the temporary ruler of the current world system.

Q should be treated with the same scepticism as any would-be oracle/demi-god. Unthinking defence of Q just because he is Q is tantamount to idolatry.

>>4737019

You do realise that ad hominems are the resort of the intellectually bereft, don't you?

>>4737048

>according to that book you read, in that class you sat in, ran by and written by the DS? I get it. just another stupid controlled sheep.

If you had an argument you would present it. But you don't, you resort to ad hominems, the mark of the intellectually deficient.

>>4737144

>>4737329

>if you are really anon.

What do you mean by this?

If I am really anonymous or if I subscribe to a cult whose adherents are called anon?