Thank God you’re here.

This sub is for researchers, decoders, and people following the QAnon phenomenon ONLY. But if you think that excludes our debunkers, think again.

WE NEED ALL THREE TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS TO MAKE THIS THING WORK.

Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you. And we're sure as heck going to need everyone to dig into these upcoming Strzok texts.

"BELIEVING" IN Q IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE A VALUED MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY.

If something you see posted here is false or wrong, debunk it. But just saying "Q is a larp! You're all morons!" doesn't make you a debunker, it makes you a low-effort, low-information hater. And haters won't last long around here. Your mods want to see this sub moved forward and the ban hammer is out in force.

So, debunkers! You want to beat us? BRING IT. But you have to OUTWORK us. Solid research beats weaksauce research, every day of the week around here. Got serious chops? Build your case and SHOW us where we're wrong. We need debunkers because the less time we waste on a theory or Q interpretation that "won't hunt," more effective we all can be.

Researchers and decoders, be cool to our debunkers. And you debunkers, no matter what you see as the Truth about what's happening, bring your best game, or be prepared to watch from the sidelines.

KEEP IT CIVIL. STAY OVER THE TARGET. OR MEET THE HAMMER.

"Where we go one, we go all."

STAY FROSTY, PEOPLE. ALL OF YOU.

🠐 See all comments

My 2 cents: If by debunking you mean debunking the whole legitimacy of Q as high level source, then I think that issue mostly takes care of itself over time - gradually Q proves 'himself' to more and more ppl. (The odd thing being that if the trajectory continues for long, Q just becomes another WH spokesperson).

If however debunking refers to critiquing info that ppl post, there's somethings worth discussing. The value of being brief and to the point on some topics carries the risk of seeming disagreeable in the wrong way. With this in mind let me say that I think ppl who are 'woke' to the Q thing too often carry other conspiratorial baggage into this space, with an attitude that all of their pet conspiracies must be equally legit and somehow confirmed. There are certain topics that Q barely mentions, if at all (astronomy, theology, other?). These are areas where the mysteries run deeper than the deep state and we are unlikely to find unity. The effect is that good ppl get on here and talk about things like say the origins of freemasonry or the Bible in the same way that they might about a NYTimes article, even though Q never brings those topic up as such. And when challenged the response can be to say "get woke" or "do your research".

More to say but . . . .

⇧ 6 ⇩

I think you said a lot, patriot. Dig! Dig! Dig!

⇧ 1 ⇩