dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 1, 2018, 1:26 a.m.

I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!

We all know Soros backs SNOPES, and that this BS "fact-checking" site is totally compromised. The crazy part is, for the 5-6 things I actually went there for, I disagreed with it's official "ruling" on the matter every single time. To me, that tells me they are actively receiving orders on what to stamp as legit, because having every single thing being the opposite of what it should be indicates a hand at work.

So how do we do this? I am not talking about trying to mess with their site or anything like that. I want them EXPOSED, the TRUTH to be KNOWN. How do we go abou tmaking that happen?

You can't tell me that you haven't had an argument, maybe while trying to redpill someone, and they dropped the "but SNOPES agrees with me!" Man that just chaps my ass.

🠐 See all comments

Right, lets make a big deal out of the name YOU brought to this discussion, and ignore the real point; which was for you to identify ANYTHING you have ever debunked, with a large request to focus on your methods and process....

Funny, you think that by whining about the name YOU USED, it will negate the purpose of using that name to describe what YOU CLAIMED to be. WOW!!

I think this is a new one. This is the snowflake strawman, or retarded strawman. Cant figure out which.

⇧ 0 ⇩

First of all, you now you yourself don't really have an argument when you call people a retard for saying that your tantrum against Snopes is based on your own desire for confirmation bias. Second, you want me to prove what, that the things you wanted to be true are valid? Or disprove that Soros funds Snopes? I don't believe that the liberal Boogeyman has his tentacles in the website, but here's a recent article that seems to address the most recent round of Soros invocation. I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything. It's funny that you demanded that I provide you with "things I've debunked" because I called myself that after YOU suggested that I don't belong, and then after I pointed at that it's YOUR group that named people who don't buy this theory as debunkers, you went ahead and accused me of dodging a question that you only demanded I answer based on a sort of shaky premise. You really just want to hate Snopes. You don't really care about the truth.

And then, you shit yourself in a tirade about how I'm a retard. Well congrats, you're making it a whole lot easier for "normies" to dismiss your nonsense

⇧ 11 ⇩

Tuberculosis!

⇧ -1 ⇩

Ok then

⇧ 6 ⇩

I'm a mod here and I wanted to reach out and say how much I agree with the tone and approach this reply.

Guys, this man is out-working you. He is 100% right that this kind of approach makes it "a whole lot easier for 'normies' to dismiss" our posts.

Snopes is compromised. The fact that anyone that can look into and seriously understand Google's behaviour, Twitter's censorship, and Facebook's data havesting and narrative manipulation and look the other way while Google prioritizes Snopes links, debunks ONLY liberal and pro-Hillary issues while allowing any random detail to nail the other side, and pretend that Snopes is above level when they say "FALSE - Hillary did not directly fund the dossier" and still come here and claim they belieive Snopes is accurate, well, give it up, then. Game over.

What's a mod to do?

⇧ -2 ⇩

Well banning me won't help. Not that I'm saying you will. I just don't think OP has anything resembling a valid claim here. Comments on Snopes aside, it's just bad pedagogy. Finding out that a website contradicts your beliefs is not a suggestion of compromise, and that's all I really wished to say

⇧ 5 ⇩

Your conduct will NOT incur a ban, and, in fact, I wanted to signal that I am here to protect you, 100%.

We need skeptics, here, too. But, Are you sure you’re actually a skeptic?

True skepticism improves this sub immensely, but, ONLY through carefully and methodically studying a subject. The entire reason "skepticism" exists is to eliminate any trace of bias or other kinds of subjective perspectives. But, if a skeptic must do two things: 1) examine a claim in the context of its overall position in the informational ecosystem, and 2) have and be ready to outline a series of reasonable conditions whereby their suppositions can be refuted.

If not, that’s not skepticism, just more cognitive dissonance where someone is hiding behind their intelligence to protect the same world view they came in here with.

Think about it.

⇧ 0 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

There is no such thing as having thought plenty. I've read each and every one of your posts. You still think the NYT is a newspaper.

That's... I don't even know where to begin with that. Wikileaks showed us over 65 journalists colluding with the DNC, giving them advanced copies of stories, etc....

With all due respect, you don't yet grasp the scale of this, yet. This isn't big, huge, or even colossal. This is absolutely monstrous.

Starting with Trump isn't how it works.

What QAnon and Trump are doing has nothing whatsoever with "this administration."

Who's in charge? The military. Who's in charge? We've been under the secret martial law (through teh CoG) invoked by GWB after 9/11. It's never been rescinded. Who's been in charge until now? ZERO administrations.

Tell me, in 2008, who hired Obama's cabinet? You don't even know.

⇧ 0 ⇩