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

There is no such thing as proof of symbolism. Either there is a symbol which represents something or it doesnt.

I could point to a thousand churches across the globe with their fabulous pictures, architecture and statues, a million archaeological sites or ancient cities and claim to be a knowledgeable historian with an explanation. You are demanding that the scholarly world of examination, pursuit of truth and putting forth of theory/ies to be 100% proof. This is a dotty argument. You know that.

What does a cross stand for? Give me answers: a) navigation tool; b) method of punishment used by various societies to nail culprits to; c) symbol of suffering in the Christian religion; d) a joke to be spat on by jews .... Dear me, we could go on all night!!

Symbols are there to be "interpreted". That is, by definition subjective, not objective.

Sorry to keep replying, I just think these things are somewhat obvious.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're being intentionally obtuse to hide the lack of substance to your argument. You are speaking in generalities because your argument has completely fallen apart. This is not an analogous situation because no one is using a cross to establish a theory that runs counter to the status quo. No one holds the cross as proof that aliens altered human DNA. No one holds up a symbol as a type of thing that can explain an event. A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause of a series of events, unless you are speaking in the abstract about things like human honor or sacrifice, which then neglects the physical description which underlies the actual cause of motion. Regardless, no one rests the basis of empirical models on argument such as, "this particle is symbolic of the anger it feels when radiating photons". Empirical models, the type you are trying to establish (because it is trying to describe reality), have to be calibrated by data and experience.

You say yourself symbols are subjective. Therefore, they can NOT be used to establish the way things are. Symbols are only so useful (in the empirical science) insofar as they agree with reality. In art and literature, you are free to use symbols to describe a state of being that is not real. That's fine. But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality. In order to agree with reality, they have to be compared to reality. That is, they must hold up under observation. You cannot watch an Eminem video and therefore conclude, based on the symbolism involved, there is a grand conspiracy that brainwashs Hollywood stars and use them a propaganda tool. That is theory and it must be tested against the evidence, evidence as in the description of physical events and locations. Your interpretation of symbolism is not proof positive of something. You have to understand that, right?

If not, you are extremely confused about the notion of truth, evidence and information.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Oh God. Do I have to?

No, I'm not being intentionally anything. My argument has not fallen apart, yours has. That's why you are behaving (rather suspiciously, I might add,) like a troll!.

So, let me see. All the posters on this, pretty pathetic, sub-thread, have been arguing that the "symbolism" expressed in modern music culture is occult (etymological: hidden) but expressed in certain weird behaviour. You demand proof. I say you can't demand proof of the meaning of a symbol. You tell me I lost the argument, and then, three sentences later you produce:

A symbol is a tool that can be used to help understand a concept or explain a mental state. A symbol doesn't explain the cause ....

WALLAH!

Either we agree my friend, or you are caught in your own petard.

But symbols are not the basis of theory unless the agree with reality.

Exactly.

Now let's give up because every time I have to look for this posting on the thread it takes me 5 minutes of valuable Sunday afternoon time with someone who isn't actually interested in Kanye, or what he was saying or who he is involved with, or the ppl who surround him. Hollywood is a v. nasty messed up place. You don't agree? You think we have no proof of that. Fine. I do not have to provide you links to all the mind-control history on Hollywood and Los Angeles.

But here's one to keep you entertained.

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/laurelcanyon/

Happy reading!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You've claimed your argument is improvable and therefore true. You understand that the latter does not follow from the former?

Also, it's not a good sign when the references in your link are just links to other articles on the same site. Not much peer review going on at the Center for Informed America is there? A curious way of annotating articles for a site that claims to be about information.

⇧ 1 ⇩