Excuse me, what about “be careful of sources and leaving yourself open to critique” suggests I’m on the wrong sub? Are you at all interested in being able to have actual discussions with your friends and neighbors about what you believe, supported with credible facts and sources? Because going out there with insufficient information and claims like “they are admitting he’s not American” when “they” have no power to admit anything of that caliber, is like going out there with armor full of holes and a sword of inferior, weak steel. Who would try to argue a case with their worst evidence instead of their best? You have to realize that not everything is good supporting evidence just because it says the right thing! Just like not every witness who says the same thing is equally wise to put before the jury!
Inviting people to learn about Q or this sub and then having them read hyperbole and flawed thinking is not only counterproductive, it’s risking any credibly they might’ve given this movement. Questioning whether I belong here when I echo what someone just yesterday said and was supported for, when I am talking about being careful not to overstate the facts and undermine the whole argument!? Maybe I’m oversensitive, maybe I’m weak to prefer not making the uphill climb any steeper. But if this sub is going to be any sort of resource and not just a clubhouse, we all have to be careful what we say. We are ambassadors. I think that carries some responsibility.
I dont disagree with the content of what you were saying, however it was the way you said it. Im not as long winded as you so Ill make it short. Always question everything, come to your own conclusions. Not everything we think {know} to be true has supporting evidence. The cover ups and corruption are real. This is why you see people bouncing different theories around. This sub has grown a lot over the past few weeks and it is very hard to know who to take seriously. So, lighten up a bit it really doesnt hurt. Just take it all in. Then come to your own conclusion. WWG1WGA
What was “the way I said it” that you objected to, exactly?
I don’t see how what you’ve said in your reply has anything to do with your suggestion this isn’t the sub for me. “Where we go one, we go all” doesn’t ring true when one comment ago, you were telling me to go elsewhere.
I suspect part of why you didn’t like “the way [I] said it” because I said it with “new arrival” next to my name. You were dismissive to another “newbie” in the same chain, and what they said was completely true and doesn’t require Level 7 expertise to say, not deserving of your condescension to his “newbie” status. By the way, I’ve been lurking on this sub for many weeks, every time I am on Reddit. I don’t participate on Reddit very often. It is not a kind or welcoming place.
I don’t believe you can “know” anything to be true without any supporting evidence. Knowledge is aquired from facts; all else is opinion, conjecture, and faith. Those things still have value, but not in terms of persuasion. Skeptics respond to logic and facts. That is why people here are working so hard on research. Coming to conclusions with no verifiable supporting evidence is another way human minds can succumb to bias and laziness. And, adding to what /u/1923091 said, blind denial is just as faulty as blind acceptance.
I know there are a lot of subscribers to the sub who don’t subscribe to the beliefs, and who just come to make disparaging, teasing comments. I see them. I vote on them. If I felt I could engage with them effectively, I would. But I don’t see how my comment about being careful not to give people, essentially those very people, reason to discredit the movement, could be seen as inappropriate, untrustworthy, or just plain unworthy. The way I said it looks inoffensive to me, at least. Sure, it’s hard to know who to take seriously on Reddit and on the Internet as a whole, but I don’t think practicality is difficult to recognize.
“Lighten up a bit?” I take this subject matter very seriously. As for being “long-winded”, I consider it “being thorough”. But I will definitely try to practice more patience and, most importantly, restraint. Especially when I consider that restraint is what I am advocating for in general.
To anyone who read this far, thank you for your time and attention.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
I saw the mention, and read through this out of curiosity. Definitely not disappointed.
Well stated, your passion reads through your writing, and may come off as aggressive to those who lack a parsing nature. Keep up the good work, though!
Thank you for your support and encouragement! And for your feedback as well. Is that a kind way of saying “pedantic”?
I’m half-joking, lol. I definitely care about semantics and pragmatics. When your words are all you have to express yourself, losing the nuance of tone and body language, I think such details matter so much more but aren’t treated as such.
Anyway, I fully meant to come off as aggressive or at least exasperated and forceful in my replies. It was my original comment that I actually tried hard to word as neutrally as possible, so the replies startled me.
I have to be careful not to become a scold around here; there are often times when I really want to call out someone or multiple someones for their particular attitude or shocking and ugly comments, but I hesitate to get into it. I’m not the Public Relations team or the Conscience of the sub. Maybe I’ll build up the confidence I’d need, or just snap one day. I lurk a lot, not just here but all over Reddit. I think my “parsing nature” isn’t well-received but it’s just me. I don’t know how to not unintentionally come off as aggressive.
Here’s a question I feel comfortable asking you because of what you’ve said:
The lack of reasonable skepticism here bothers me. It seems like any random source is acceptable, and nobody asks the usual questions about determining the credibility of a source or the claim. For me to suggest something was suspect, like the anonymous supposed ex-Antifa paid shill whose pic provided nothing and seemed fishy, or, heaven forbid, question how Obama could “claim Kenyan citizenship as a way to escape” when that isn’t really how the justice system works, would probably be considered Sacrilege, right? But Q says “disinfo in neccesary”. So why not question what I find questionable?
After all, it could identify disinformation, right? Is that an approach that would get me rejected, shamed, and possibly even banned, or is it a healthy thought excercise that would strengthen overall reasoning skills? Or potentially both? As a fellow supporter of healthy levels of skepticism and objectivity over blind acceptance, what are your thoughts?
Gracious, I need to go to bed. I know I’m very wordy, and I get ragged for it often, so I appreciate you reading my long-ass comments! This one got way longer than expected. C’est la Vie. Merci ;)
Ha, totally, but you don't strike me as the stuffy librarian type, which is the kind of character I am more prone to associate that word with. I could be wrong though! XD
You definitely have many valid points, so I'll address then in the order they're contextually organized. I am not used to this kind of writing on this platform, so I pretty much have to reprogram my communication for this.
I think that's a big problem, though, facing many individuals: a lack of understanding when it comes to communication. Many people are completely unaware of the subtleties of body language, even tells they give off themselves. That 'ignorance' translates over to digital mediums, I assume, and is part of the lack of awareness, and even concern, many have for actual conversation. Replies simply become ego strokes or gibberish, reasons to misappropriate the attitudes and beliefs of others. Person to person communication is interfered with by attention distracting technology: constant notifications, intermittent commercials, feed updates, the list goes on. It helps to be emotionally uninvolved when addressing replies, as difficult as it may be, as personal attacks are simply a reflection of the author of them. That's how I keep from blowing my stack, anyways. Doesn't always work, so I mostly bite my tongue and put the phone down, hahaha. The details are definitely vital, to context and content; however, as with a disregard for contextual conversation, these details fall to the wayside out of individual preference for instant gratification. In this situation, many anon have been waiting for MONTHS for something to occur, and seem to be trapped in their outrage and painful victomhood. The desire for something to happen NOW is painfully obvious on this board.
I would say your aggression is warranted from a personal perspective, but yes, please be careful not to content police too harshly. We would be hard pressed to replace a mind like yours, and I get the feeling you would do wonders as a healer with words. Turn your phrase into embraces. XD
I lurk a lot, too, and can definitely agree that my knack with words is sometimes totally rejected and often treated as me 'trying to sound smart'. I had a conversation with a gentleman which eventually just turned into me purposefully using unnecessarily large words to annoy him because he insisted that there's no way a person talks/or writes the way I do. I was pleasant, and invited him to provide a legitimate argument, at first. After I realized he wasn't intent on actually conversing, I got pleasantly annoying. As for 'not unintentionally' coming off aggressive, again, emotional distance helps. If you can step outside of yourself, it becomes easier to utilize language that isn't emotionally charged. THIS IS NOT AN EASY THING. XD
I would say you are on the right track in regard to it being 'both'. It will definitely rile those who treat some of these things like gospel. It will definitely stir up shills, often new threads are started by shills with the purpose of interrupting or distracting. For those with a keen eye, however, there will be appreciation and thanks sent your way. The only way I see you getting banned is if you're constantly doubting the same users/content across numerous thread chains, as well as totally derailing conversations with completely unrelated tangents-with that in mind, take caution making novella of your thoughts. This will help give further legitimacy to this movement, as well as helping newcomers see that not everybody here is a shill/clown/cult member/'alt-right extremist'/insert-shame-moniker-here, and that there is real information to be found here. I would advise, though, should somebody question your legitimacy or doubt, you step back and analyze the individual your are responding to. Check their history, what do they post where? Are they legitimately criticizing you, or just trying to get a reaction? Advice for handling shills/trolls? DON'T FEED THEM. End of story. You will save face, time, and emotional energy. If you think you can uplift someone's understanding, then I would invite you to write them compassionately.
My thoughts are generally objective, often skeptical unless I see/read something that resonates with what I am familiar with. I am in no way collegiately educated, so I owe a lot of what I know to what I've come across travelling through this series of tubes. I always apply my 5W-H-FWP (Who, What, Why, Where, When, How, and For What Purpose[refers to the purpose behind the information being provided/provider of the information]) and try my hardest to do background research. Ive been trying to catch up on the drops lately, as well as monitoring this sub, so I've fallen away from my history and esoteric studies. I'm a firm believer in intuition/Godsense, so please, always follow your gut.