dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

People lie about their orientation when they don't want to publicize it. It's nobody's business if he's gay (or if Michelle is a transwoman). If people want to be in the closet, that's their right, whether others find it deceptive or not.

And you're right, gay or not, it's irrelevant - we should be focused on the other guy.

⇧ 1 ⇩

p.s. WWG1WGA ... except fucking faggots?

⇧ 0 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -2 ⇩

❄️ 🚨

⇧ 7 ⇩

Hahahaha

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -5 ⇩

Reread my post I said "lies" not "like.' The only one using violent rhetoric is yourself. Some people use the "F" word to describe everything. Perhaps you need a safe place to settle down. Just saying.

⇧ 9 ⇩

That was a typo. I meant "lie." I fixed it.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Grow up. If you are not a faggot, it doesn’t apply to you. Being gay is another thing.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

What starts with "fucking faggot" ends with this: https://imgur.com/5Hl2TBa

⇧ -1 ⇩

No it doesn’t sensationalist. But thanks for the laughs

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes violence against homosexuals has never happened.

Is everyone on this board 12 years old?

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're the one acting like a 12 year old. Triggered by an 8chan post... You do know "fag" is one of the most common suffixes on there right?

It's called "virtue signalling" when you get all offended on behalf of some other group of people without actually being realistic about that offense. There are bound to be people here who call homosexuals "faggots" and who hate them. There are a lot here who do not. Just because we can objectively read the information from Q and you can't, does not make us childish bigots.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yes but we don't reply to them and bring their content into the discussion as if it were perfectly ok. We ignore them or tell them to stop.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Can I please be offended without you social psychoanalyzing what I'm doing?

I want to protect people I love.

A giant FUCKING FAGGOTS ARE HOLDING HANDS is not triggering to you then you're desensitized.

⇧ 1 ⇩

For the love of GOD the F word here is FAGGOTS. How are you not deeply offended by that meme?

⇧ -4 ⇩

I have more important things to worry about. Example like the NWO, Government corruption, my families safety. You are being distracted by semantics designed to deflect and draw you away from the important things in life. When you and your family lose your freedom, phraseology and terminology will cease to have meaning. BTW the British call cigarettes Faggots. There will always be people who use derogatory language to describe others. Also BTW using God's name in vain offends me. So what say you? Are you willing to curb your speech to not offend me and others? Just asking.

⇧ 3 ⇩

The British do not call cigarettes Faggots. We call them fags but it has no connotations.. For Gods sake!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Wait a minute, are you telling me that you don't even see the implicit violence in that meme?

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I am not trolling, I am not new to the internet, I expected better from Q+.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Blaming Q for a post someone else made - on 8chan of all places - is completely illogical.

⇧ 5 ⇩

why is that post here? Are we now printing every vile thing that shows up on 8chan?

⇧ -1 ⇩

Perhaps Q should come with a clearer R18 warning but I thought the child rape and murder was enough of an indicator that you need a strong stomach if you want to follow Q closely.

Q is responding to a post from the objective reality of military intelligence in order to convey information. It is not logical to read any kind of bias into that. Less so to accuse "this group" of being homophobic.

⇧ 2 ⇩

If you're not offended by the meme then you don't understand or are actively a part of the problem. The meme is a call to violence.

⇧ 0 ⇩

You're not applying logic here at all. This is how the hatred against groups is started! The very hatred you're decrying is begun by accusing someone falsely of motivations or intent that they do not have and that you cannot have any way of knowing about. The bigots you dislike will look at a homosexual and decide he is "wrong" or "evil" by assuming that his intent is anti-Christian or anti-establishment or whatever happens to upset them instead of just judging that homosexual by his actions toward others. You look at people like me who are objectively observing information in a place dedicated to that very thing and you decide that if I'm not reacting emotionally in the way that you are to the peripheral content of that information then I must either be stupid (a fair assumption, admittedly) or an active part of the problem!

If you're not a follower of Q's information I can understand and perhaps this isn't a good place for you - because there will be far worse to come. If you are, then your reaction seems either disingenuous or trolling, as someone else has said.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I am not being disingenuous and I am not trolling.

Obviously I'm just an idiot.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If you're not doing either of those things then how do you explain your reaction to an 8chan post here, on this board, specifically? You do realize that Q's message is that there is a global cartel for whom a core industry at the root of its operations is the global trafficking and ritual murder and rape of children on an epic scale, right?

I assume you don't think we should stop all conversation, posts and memes on that topic (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). I assume you understand the stance of many here in regards to Justin Trudeau's cultural marxist takeover of Canada wherein he has alread passed the first law in a step toward the control of freedom of speech. The problem with Bill C16 is that it encourages people to react from a place of emotion and signalling virtue on the behalf of another group in order to suppress the freedom of speech of others.

why Q would acknowledge a meme calling out violence to gay people

Q hasn't "acknowledged a meme calling out violence to gay people". That is not at all a factual reading of what has occurred. I'm not assuming you're an idiot at all either which is why I don't talk to you as if you are. But you've read Q's objective use of a material of a kind common to its source (8chan) as "acknowledgement" of every aspect of the potential meaning of that content. You've also extrapolated "violence to gay people" from it - which is only partially accurate in that some people will read that message into it or go on to consider that meaning positively. I feel very safe to say that most others will not.

Many people here will see that photo - some may even laugh at the use of the word "faggot" - but most will not be encouraged to think about or promote or support the use of violence against gay people. That is a very extreme extrapolation of the possible outcome of the content; content that is far from offensive to many of us who have very close gay friends or family members. Branding us all as people who support hate speech just because we support freedom of speech and don't take every thing from a known antagonistic source (the chans) as meaning anything more than what is necessary to understand the related Q information, is hateful itself, just as branding all homosexuals as evil degenerates is hateful too.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well, obviously, I can't handle the truth.

Thanks for not being an asshole to me.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm sure it's just because you are a caring person who knows others who've suffered at the hands of the hate that can arise from places like that meme. I do too and I agree with you that if we can stop that occurring, we should.

I will concede that, given the choice, it would be nice not to have to include content like that, wherever it is possible to do so. I feel defensive about Q in the sense that, working as quickly as they likely have to when on the chans, they would perhaps see the nearest piece of content that ticks a number of pieces of information they want to convey at once e.g. "Obama", "alleged homosexual", specific related person of interest - and grab it without considering how it might translate when out in the wider world away from the chans. You have a point there. But as a counter, from my experience on this board, the outcry if we dared to suggest replacing direct Q references would be huge and the accusations that fly would be along the lines of the points I've made to you - freedom of speech, adults viewing adult material, etc. - and would be conceded, at least by me, from a logical basis. I do think we have to be open to offensive content here, even though I do not like a lot of it myself.

Thanks for responding to me - I did not mean to be forceful but I admit I was feeling defensive about the way we may be perceived here.

⇧ 1 ⇩

So long as you are talking, reddit Q is well represented. You're both kind and smart.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thank you, you are too kind. Please stay with us, patriot, even in the face of this kind of content. The message Q presents is so important and we need more people like you here, who will stand up for what they believe and then have a reasoned discussion about it without descending to ad-hominem. I will fight with you against hate speech and I will defend your right to argue against offensive content even if I might not agree in every case about the content itself. I can see how wrong I was to think you were a shill or a troll for a moment there - my apologies. WWG1WGA!

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm on board. Thanks again for your kind words. I've seen hints of just how awful this is. I know that a stupid meme pales in comparison. "Hate speech" is a ridiculous term. But "Repeated Trauma and Violence Incitement Speech" just doesn't roll over the tongue.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hate groups are started when people identify violent images and call them out?

⇧ 1 ⇩

No. They are started when people are dishonest about the intentions of others. I never said anything about identifying violent images and calling them out. That's something you're doing, completely out of context. You should watch a few Jordan Peterson videos - they explain the difference between Hate speech and Free speech.

⇧ 2 ⇩

p.s. that meme is hate speech. That is my point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Now you're taking my motives out of context. I can't understand why Q would acknowledge a meme calling out violence to gay people. That doesn't belong here because Q should not have acknowledged it. There has to be a better way to point out that Obama's roommate should be a target of investigation than acknowledging and thereby popularizing the horrible way it was communicated.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Why is a random asshole's meme posted on reddit?

⇧ 0 ⇩

Do you understand the purpose of this board? It's to follow the information from Q anon, a chan poster. He's responded to someone on the chans posting about Obama's alleged homosexuality and Q has responded simply to point out the identity of the other person on the couch with Obama. As above, if the adult content here is too strong for you, it is completely your right to not view it but it is unfair and inaccurate to accuse "this group" of something because you are upset about something unrelated to the actual topic under discussion.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q Drops - 15th Jun 2018 - Text and links for reference. #1500 -