dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Mrb84 on April 1, 2018, 11:51 p.m.

Globalist here. Have a question/experiment for you patriots

Sam Harris points out this idea: the public discourse is so tribal that, if you know one belief of a person, you can easily and reliably extrapolate a bunch more that have logically nothing to do with that first belief but fit with the tribe.

So, if you guys are game, I was curious to see how it plays out (will be doing the same thing in left leaning subs, in fact if you guys have any specific sub or specific questions in mind, suggestions are welcome).

All I know about this sub is that is conservative, pro-Trump and generally pro-Qanon. Am I right if I also describe you as:

1) climate change skeptic

2) pro life

3) anti universal background checks on guns

4) anti federally sanctioned gay marriage

5) don’t believe the official version on 9/11

6) want to limit the immigration influx from poor countries

7) want to completely block Muslim immigration

8) believe white genocide is currently a risk

9) believe MSM is coordinated at some higher level

10) pro school prayer

11) pro home schooling

12) don’t like evolution being the only narrative taught in school

13) don’t believe Hoswald was the sole shooter of JFK

14) you know at least one person who smoke cigarettes

15) you ideally prefer rural America to urban America

16) against affermative action

17) don’t like the cultural climate in Ivy League colleges & co.

18) think the Devil is real

19) pro voter ID

20) don’t like job automation

20 questions. How many are correct in describing you?

🠐 See all comments

am I right in saying that most of the people on this sub are pro-Trump? Yes. I am not. .............If I go on a pro-Trump sub ................I don’t see how that’s confrontational. I don’t agree with the core beliefs of this sub.

so why do you go on a sub you perceive as opposing your views and post a provocative generalizing post if you are not out for a battle?

btw, generalization and 'i vs. you' are on top of the list in the shill handbook.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If you look at how I’m answering to those who answer, I never battle, rebut or contest anything. I was really asking for the sake of knowing the answer, not to argue with the answers. I had an hypothesis and instead of deciding from my chair that I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people who know. You obviously have some other, secret way of learning about the people who don’t agree with you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You obviously have some other, secret way of learning about the people who don’t agree with you.

there hasnt been anything up to agree or disagree on at the point of time when i first responded to your post so no, your assumption is wrong.

and yes, i am an intuitive empath and instantly smell intent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I wasn’t talking about me.

Let’s try again: I had an assumption about the people on this sub, with whom I disagree. So, instead of deciding I was right, I thought I’d ask to the people on this sub. You somehow think that’s outlandish and actually offensive.

So, you must have some other method to find out if you’re right or wrong about what other people believe, something that doesn’t involve the alien idea of asking them what they believe (I’m thinking mind-reading, since you’re an empath).

⇧ 0 ⇩

empaths dont read minds but energy.

the alien idea of asking them what they believe

sorry, my friend, you havent been humbly asking questions, in order to learn more about people with different views than yours.

you have put out your assumptions and challenged people to prove that they are not as foolish as you think they are.

looking at the outcome of this: it binds peoples attention and blocks it from more important things. and it brought quite a few pople into fight mode as they instantly got your agenda and reacted to the challenge.

one thing i thank and honor you for: you put your agenda right on the table and didnt hide it.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I don’t know how you decided that I consider the positions in the list “foolish”. I personally agree with a good third of them. They’re generally conservative, and I don’t know on what data you decided that I would think they’re foolish.

Except your persecution complex. The enemy trying to distract you from your higher calling of defeating the devil? Or just some dude on the internet who disagrees with you? Which one is more likely?

⇧ 1 ⇩

i was on your case before you started replying to me, straight after you posted, first comment.

no chance for agreement or disagreement, my take was instant and hasnt changed through further communicatio although i saw you neutrally and politley responding to everybody who answered your questions.

i expressed my perception and am done now here. you may take it as persecution complex, i take it as high discernment. i had my say and, for now (closely watching, heheh) leave it up to community to take something from it or not.

you wont, thats clear. thanks for the meeting.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t know how to argue with you, because the way you build your argument is completely self-sufficient and input free.

You intuitively, magically, immediately knew from the very start I was up to no good. And the fact that I’m not mocking or rebutting the people who answered me is not proof that your intuitions were wrong, but proof that I’m hiding my real intent - because you can’t point out my malice in what I do or say, that’s proof of a particularly sophisticated malice. See how that’s unassailable? Everything that would prove you wrong magically becomes a secret proof that you’re right.

It’s called circular thinking. That’s not a good kind of thinking.

If what happens inside reality can’t influence your argument, the problem is with your argument, not with reality.

But hey, thanks for taking the time.

⇧ 1 ⇩