Anonymous ID: 67c1da March 29, 2019, 3:41 p.m. No.5968618   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8672 >>8675 >>8680 >>8699

>>5968272

Baker, this is NOT NOTABLE

>>5968065, >>5968386, >>5968203, >>5968434

How we're represented to the outside world in a direct address to the Press is far too important a subject to be given to one anon and a few onlookers to give the thumbs up or down to. This same poster was lobbying to put this content in global notables not long ago.

 

We're researchers, and this is a research site. Anon theories on the cabal and their actions is one thing, but we ought to exercise care on making them notable when it comes to statements making claims about what we do or don't espouse or support.

 

We argued long and hard over the "we no violenz" statement at the top of every bread, the culmination of THIS SAME DISCUSSION: the "OMG the press think we're violent and crazy how do we convince them we're not!"

 

Our work, and this statement, should suffice:

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here.

 

This, in particular, is subversively dishonest, playing right into the gotcha words of the left/MSM:

>>If it is hate based, it is paid or fake.

This is too broad and amorphous a claim.

What exactly is "hate" anyway?

According to the left, it's disagreement.

Or hard-hitting, ironically extreme memes.

 

It's a long-standing part of chan culture not to pull punches in HOW we say a thing, or WHAT we criticize. Some may call it hate, we just call it straight talk. But we let the facts speak for themselves.

 

THAT is what should represent us to the MSM. Not some anon's apologetics.

Anonymous ID: 67c1da March 29, 2019, 3:49 p.m. No.5968745   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5968598

>Shill isn’t going to like it obviously. I will post it until you’re unemployed

Oh good. I hope you post it lots, again and again, so it qualifies as the kind of spam that gets your ass a rest on the bench.

Faggot.

 

>>5968675

>what exactly is wrong with a carefully worded rejected

I already explained, in detail.

But your above post proves that if you can't fool us with word salad and platitudes, you're willing to resort to an attempt at heckler's veto by spamming our board until we accede to your demands.

>It’s pretty shilly

You said it, not me.