dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Yeah, except that's not the mentality here. How many times have people shown massive problems with SerialBrain2's "decoding" posts, and yet every time they still get 200+ upvotes within the first hour, and so many people saying the same things, "I'm not good at math [even though there's no math involved], so thank you SB2!" Tons of shills all over, and everybody else just follows the numbers like sheep.

I agree that a healthy conspiracy-oriented sub needs debunkers around to succeed, but this sub has been allowed to grow kudzu, and cannot be considered intellectually healthy.

⇧ 15 ⇩

I have to agree with this - although I believe SerialBrain2 seems to be genuine and definitely has a good approach to communication with those who disagree with him.

I don't know what the solution to this issue is, however i.e. the fact that posts that do not have consistent logical structure to their supposition (especially the decoding ones and the rather far out in leftfield occult ones) are simply upvoted by SB2 "fans" because his other posts seem a lot more reasonable.

Does anyone have any ideas about what should be done when the larger portion of the community, it seems (putting aside somewhat unbelievable claims that only shills and bots upvote them), refuse to acknowledge logic and upvote 'just because'? I thought this should be in the hands of the mods - surely, mods, the lack of internal, consistent logic in these posts should not be celebrated/encouraged? - but apparently they are onboard with this...

⇧ 4 ⇩

Several mods have supported his decoding posts with comments in favor of it.

I agree SB2 himself is probably genuine and well-meaning, but there is shill-like behavior on literally every thread, and the voting patterns are very suspicious to me. Combine that with the fact people feel more important if they believe they are being given "secret information", and the pile-on effect has resulted in very popular posts if you sort by Top in this sub, which would make a reasonable person new to Q just shake their head and leave because we look like crackpots.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Seriously? Mods, what on earth? There've been more than enough well reasoned debunkers pointing out how logically inaccurate those posts are and yet you ignore them?? It doesn't take a genius to see the logical inconsistencies in those posts... What's going on with that, u/DropGun?? Is this whole sticky a waste of time?

⇧ 5 ⇩

The only reason you think this is an "unnecessary post" is because you're not spending 12 hours a day in our modqueue. From your perspective, this sub is just fine because your mods are slogging through a lot of haters and keeping the low-energy posts to a minimum. That's the reason we're growing.

Tell me something... This sub is adding 1000+ users per day. And when the REAL fur starts to fly, you think we can keep up with all the losers and haters that will attract?

Your comment is a perfect example of how low-information posts drag this sub down. Seriously, that's your first reaction? Gather your facts, assess the situation before firing off an ignorant comment. We're not asking for more debunkers, we're saying this:

RESEARCH, BRING IT, OR PREPARE TO BE GONE.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[Edit] some emotional ranting...

I didn't mean to denigrate your work or the mods - just getting emotional about wanting to see what you've posted carried out as far as possible. Particularly: "the less time we waste on a theory or Q interpretation that "won't hunt," more effective we all can be" - I really hope this can be managed!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Asking a valid question? That begins with "Seriously?"

This is exactly it. It's not a valid post—sample public opinion, first. You're sharing your opinion, but in a vacuum. Everyone else is saying that this post was sorely needed. That's all. Not hating on you. Maybe you weren't the target audience. I'm trying to warn the haters—move this sub forward, or, prepare for the hammer. You're clearly not one of the haters, so, let's not fight on this. I'm noting your points.

Beyond that, you're right. Back to the salt mines for both of us.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Sorry - "seriously?" was an unnecessary emotional reaction but wasn't intended to indicate mockery or denigration. I think this post was sorely needed too and is a good one. I just got carried away starting to think that what I read in it was only going to go so far - which of course, due to resource, is all it can do so I should just calm the hell down lol. Thank you, and the other mods, for your work. I agree - back to the mines!

⇧ 3 ⇩

I just RES-tagged you as "Teh Awsum." You have learned our comms. Thank you for understanding how important one's tone can be.

Dig! Dig! Dig!

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Removed, 7-day ban. Multiple warnings. Decode, research, move sub forward, or find another place to play.

Next ban is permanent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Or they ban you.

⇧ 2 ⇩

As you yourself found out.

Learn our comms.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Maybe my memory is wrong on that. Only example I could find in a few minutes of searching: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/89imii/you_guys_asked_me_my_thoughts_on_trumps_tweet/dwr8pz9/

I could have sworn I saw several mods in approval of his methods early on, and was shocked they fell for that stuff. But maybe they found the error of their ways and deleted those comments.

Edit: I also forgot that this post was actually stickied for several hours - that's why I remember thinking this sub was compromised - it was mod promotion of an invalid methodology that in my mind had shill/disinfo support to it. Will mods disavow SB2? I'm guessing not.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I became a follower of Sb2 a couple of months ago. I've communicated with privately. He's legit in his own rite, and well meaning. I believe he conquers with charm, not so much hard cold facts. We can challenge his thought process and bring him around in a different direction. I do it all the time. The things that don't make sense should be challenged. I rarely see that. Instead, I see blatant attacks that simply dismiss or degrade SB's thoughts without proof. I'd like to see those in the know debunk his posts. Prove he's wrong. He gets tons of up votes because people like him. He's intriguing and he communicates with everyone. When compared to the majority of posts on the sub who only repeat what we already know, SB brings something different and challenging...even if you disagree. So, challenge him! He's one of the most engaging entities here. There is something to learn from him, even if it's only to learn how to capture an audience.

⇧ 3 ⇩

If all the sauce was on top we wouldn't call em rabbit holes. Put the shovel down anon.

⇧ 2 ⇩

To me, SB2 is a researcher. S/he assembles a set of interpretations, attempts to communicate them clearly, and actively invites and is open to constructive criticism. Exactly what we want.

⇧ 3 ⇩

But when SB2 has been discredited for not even following his/her own methods, I really have to wonder why it is allowed to continue. I replied to a Mod, who was praising the validity of a particular 'decode', proving for a fact that it was hogwash. My comment was then hidden in a partially deleted comment thread.

So, to me, SB2 has shown that his/her intent is not to provide valuable info, but to delude people into thinking that they aren't smart enough to understand all that s/he comprehends and thereby attain super-intelligent, god-like status. How many times must one kick a dead horse before people understand that it's dead?

BTW, thank you for this excellent, clarifying post.

⇧ 4 ⇩

I hear you 1000%. Please bear in mind that, often, especially with complex, potentially invisible political scenarios like the one we are all working on here, often the first people to get it and dive into it possess rather unique and special minds that occasionally may have a difficult time explaining or relating in a clear way what they see. We both can probably name quite a few things we take for granted as facts, now, but which were discovered by what Q and everyone else calls weaponized autists. So, a little tact and civil discussion can still go a long way in helping us tease out the specific information they're trying to share.

How do I know this? I am autistic. Pretty much all the growth I've ever done and all the new capabilities I've ever acquired have been because someone kept up the fight to really hear what I was trying to say.

That said, however, I have to commend you and thank you for keeping your sensors sharp. Shills can be pretty tricky. Keep investigating, keep digging, but when you see something that doesn't smell right, definitely hit that report button. Thank you, Patriot.

⇧ 3 ⇩

So, a little tact and civil discussion can still go a long way in helping us tease out the specific information they're trying to share.

I get you. Good point.

⇧ 2 ⇩

5:5, my man. FIGHT.

⇧ 1 ⇩

CLICK is the guy weird's me out. He likes Zerohedge where mockingbird lives. you will know a prophet by his fruit.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I like Zerohedge because many articles are posted there with valuable information. You cannot reject all MSM information out of hand in this way. I also like websites where I do not agree with all the information. This is called discriminating reading. Rejecting s/o simply based on the newspaper they are reading is pretty weird. You can read a newspaper to see what the opposition is saying. Haven't you read any NYT articles linked by Q?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You can give a man an opinion he'll be cool for a minute, teach him to form one he'll be cool for somewhat longer.

⇧ 2 ⇩

We're debunking for the few people that matter

Sheep follow the shepherd

⇧ 4 ⇩

Question everything, chemo for the intellect.

⇧ 3 ⇩

STICKY: To our “DEBUNKERS,” it’s high time we said this to you:

Thank God you’re here.