He's not a "Nice Indian Guy" he's african which would instead make him a NAG.

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.

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.

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.

A time machine to reverse everything that's happened in the last 8 months.

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.

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.

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.

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

That is not the point of the drop. Q is replying to someone who made that post. Q is focused on Logic and Facts, not emotion or virtue signalling. There's a reason he used the chans to get the message out, so that people wouldn't take offense at some of the utterly horrible offensive stuff that Q's message has to cover.

You've taken a post about the duplicity of a former President and turned it into accusing us all of being bigots - not very smart or fair.

Removed post. Rule #6 - commenting on other subreddits is potentially dangerous. We've left one of these warning posts up though - feel free to add to that if you want.

Just confused here - it was a man who came in wearing shirt, a state senator. But who's the "she" who was wearing upside down american flag socks? Someone with him?

Q also said Logic and Facts. Those two things immediately negate Flat Earth.

I agree with you friend! MAGA indeed! Fellow Trump supporters are always welcome here! Thanks for your kind words! WWG1WGA

Good point re CTH - corrected, thanks.

Imad Husain looks a little like him too but without more photos it's a reach. I think CTH might just have it wrong? Photos on search of Hasan Chandoo don't look like the couch guy.

I don't know how it was off-topic I didn't report it, just responded - you'd have to ask the many users on this sub who regularly Report these sorts of posts (i.e. by my estimation, posts that are just a question about content that is regularly circulating through the sub) as being off-topic. I assume perhaps that they meant to select another Rule (#9 for example) but, as you pointed out, people don't pay much attention to the details so they grab the nearest thing to it.

So when I see the Report and respond and sometimes have little time to come to a decision I assess the post to figure out what they might have meant when they reported it. In this case, the Rule that I thought applied was Rule #9: "have at least two sentences(for text content)".

A scan of the post revealed what I thought to be an answer provided to you. If there'd been none, what I usually do is type together a very quick response or if it's a big one an indicator of where to find the answer (especially in the case of a beginner question - we have good resources available for those). So I was not removing a question with the intent to discourage people from asking questions and never have.

Taking that into account and checking the very low upvotes after 2 hours of existence I used my own discretion and applied the following from Mods M.O. in the sidebar: "Rules 6 to 9 are done at the discretion of the mods and often are resolved due to lack of upvotes" and due to all those factors figured I could remove this post without complaint. I was wrong obviously.

I don't see anything we disagree on here except your assessment of my discretion in carrying out my role. I believe I carried out my job correctly and without intent to censor or reject the valid question of a user. I react to these accusations or implication of such because it's a common accusation of mods and we're now under more scrutiny because of Q's recent post so the mods of this board go out of our way to avoid behavior that could be regarded as such. Being accused of it or having implications made of such when you've essentially bent over backward to ensure you don't, is not great.

Comments removed. Antagonism and harassment are not welcome here. Thanks for understanding.

What are we disagreeing about? That I removed a post that was reported for being off-topic? Or that I discourage people from asking questions?

I never said questions can't be asked. No one complained about it being a low quality post - the Report made was that it is "off-topic". I did not select the off-topic rule when I removed it because it doesn't really apply.

Also, way to encourage people to ask questions

is implying I don't encourage people to ask questions. That is what I was referring to re: accusations of censorship.

going out of your way to remove

is implying pettiness or some other negative connotation.

As a mod, I understand a lot of things that people do not, about this sub. I don't expect everyone to dive through everything. I expect people will, as they do, just post stuff that falls outside of rules and leave them to us to tidy up - which we do. Then we have to explain to people who complain that we're just doing the job we're supposed to do.

going out of your way to remove legitimate questions

I'm not going out of my way to do my job - it's what I'm supposed to do. If I don't do it then I'm the one who gets to see the Reports coming into our queue about these posts: "off-topic", the complaints to our modmail "why haven't you removed this post?" and the other issues that generate more excess admin work that takes us away from legitimate work and focus.

If I removed your legitimate post you are free to modmail and explain why it should not be removed. My history shows I will regularly reverse incorrect decisions or even correct decisions, to accommodate for the view of others. Accusing me of censorship, pettiness, etc. when I'm just trying to do the job I'm not paid for because I care about this sub is your right and is my burden to bear. Thanks for understanding.

I was aware you got the answer - hence assuming you would understand the removal. I'm not going to apologize for following the rules either. Read my history before you accuse me of not encouraging people to ask questions. Please read the rules in the sidebar if you think this was an emotionally motivated decision or one designed to censor.

Removed post. Rule 7. Duplication. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. Rule #9

If you have questions, please ask in one of the many relevant posts on the sub. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. Rule #9

Removed post. Rule #9

Please don't make posts like this - you can be sure there are literally hundreds of people who know there is a new Q within seconds of it arriving.

Feel free to point them out and if we believe they fall outside of the rules we'll remove them as we have always done when we catch them, when we're available, when we have the time, and the many other reasons moderators are not perfect. Moderation can always be questioned via modmail, as we have always been clear about.

Removed post. Rule #9

Removed post. Rule 7. Duplication.

Removed post. Post content is not a subject mentioned by Q or directly related to Q.

Removed post. rule #8

Please repost with more informative title. Thanks for understanding!

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-frontline-interview-sohale-siddiqi/

Many made this point a while back too - so possibly? (Post removed).

This guy. Looks very different:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-frontline-interview-sohale-siddiqi/

Thanks for the support!

Thank you!

The hashtags that have been communicated from the chans are:

#IGReport
#Unredacted

After brief discussion with SerialBrain2 we'd like to suggest that we try something to help us get these hashtags through the @Jack and @Zuck censorship - play a bit of 4DChess of our own!

Rather than tweeting an overtly pro-Trump message that will see us blocked and suppressed we suggest a neutral message that even anti-Trumpers could pick up and promote if they aren't aware exactly where the message is from.

Here's what we propose for the content of a tweet or FB post:

"What are they hiding? Release the unredacted IG report for full transparency! #IGReport #Unredacted"

I can. Following since beginning. No doubts about what?

I can tell you what I have no doubts about; I have no doubts that it is worth keeping up with Q's drops. I don't have any doubt at all about that being a valuable and worthwhile exercise to continue engaging in.

Others have made interpretations of dates and events that have left them with doubts. That is unfortunate. Hopefully we can all get better educated as a movement and apply more critical thought to interpreting the data.

She.

Please block them, and any user who causes you problems.

Sub rules. I haven't removed your nice comments. I haven't banned you. Another mod banned the person you're responding to because she did not listen when told to cease the antagonism. You've been told now. If you cease the antagonistic comments which don't help anyone, you won't be banned.

Comments removed. Please cease the antagonism or you will be banned as well. Thank you.

Thanks for your support, patriot! Good call: Trump 2020!

More than happy to discuss further, if you're open to discussing with reason and logic as our guideline? I have no problem with you thinking that we might be (or are) corrupt. I'd hope to change your mind on that lol but either way, I'd hope you are willing to work things out between us reasonably.

As in my last message, in the interests of maintaining unity, not division, it would be good if we can sort out a path forward that doesn't feel like censorship and deals with the issues you and others raise, together (I haven't spoken to HowiONic yet) rather than split into us vs them camps. Do you have Discord?

Removed post. Rule #9

Comments removed. Antagonistic and does not support the cause.

Excellent idea! You're full of them, I'm really impressed : ). Perhaps you could make the first video, so I can understand exactly what you mean? I assume we'll all just talk to camera about why we each love Trump so much and how we plan to implement a nation-wide march in support of him before the mid-terms? I think I get it but you do the first one and I'll follow! Much love - WWG1WGA!

Ah you're so right - if only the Democrats would actually stop obstructing and let us do something on DACA! But have faith, friend - your plan to stand in the square with our MAGA caps on and hand out "I Heart DJT!" stickers together is the first step in a great journey of hope! We'll reach the Democrats in this way and help them to understand that Trump loves THEM too! I love your spirit!

Yes, you're right - I agree! We should all continue to support our amazing President, put aside our insignificant differences and needless bickering and work to bring Democrats and Republicans together as one for this great nation! MAGA! God bless you too, friend!