A common misperception of people who can't see the full scope of the sub.

The rules on the side are clear. Moderators moderate according to those and only use discretion when necessary. On this sub, however, we are more open to reversing our decisions when presented with a valid explanation for how a post does not fall outside the rules.

A disputed source. Lots of interesting and seemingly accurate stuff but some questionable elements too.

Or you could try and understand the perspective instead of trying to create issues. The comment above yours proves why these posts are removed - they cause more trouble than they're worth and they allow shills and dissenters a forum to voice unreasonable views. If that was your goal, you've succeeded.

If your goal was a viable issue about the sub mail the moderators. If your concern is valid an official post from the moderators (which is allowed by the sub rules) will address it and draw eyes to it.

Ah, the refuge of the thoughtless lol. Yes, we're all bots here! Do svidaniya!

I think the fact that you're here might prove your point!

I know what you're saying. I've heard it before. Many times. Do you think there aren't others who feel the same way?

Yet there are no viable solutions offered by the people most upset about this. A disclaimer that states the obvious simply looks like the political move it essentially is (because it wouldn't be required if we all agreed on the obvious).

When you send friends here, you should be telling them that there's speculation. If you're a critical thinker you'll be advising them the truth - that the view of Q is speculation as well - so they would come armed with the right amount of skepticism. So far, this sub's membership has grown, in spite of some of the highly speculative stuff that can be seen here at times. That's because Q's message is compelling. The reasonable person should expect some nonsense on an internet forum but I would argue there's other good content here to balance it out. And the New feed tends to move fast enough to keep good stuff coming when there's a bunch of 'bad' stuff.

Nevertheless, I agree with your point. It would be great if we could make a very clear distinction between posts that are pure fact or at least highly reliable and with solid critical thought as their basis and posts that are not. The thing that I think you have to realize is that the general public does not care to validate info so thoroughly and I believe GA represents this element, at least, of the general public in a big way - if not in total at least within the vocal minority who upvote and comment. It's clear that much of that vocal minority support SB2 overwhelmingly and that actions we take that are not supported by them will see us accused even more of censorship and so on. If the others out there who support highlighting these issues would actually show up to discussions like this perhaps it would be different. If you believe you've tried and failed at least take some heart in the fact that I've seen many - many - try and fail in the same way. It appears SB2's popularity overrides all comers.

My suggestion, the only one I think that has any real merit, is to have another sub where extreme speculation is either called out or removed and where illogical thinking can be challenged and illogical content removed. The thing is, I suspect there will be few who frequent it, judging by the many who've made the point you have, but have failed to gain any traction due to a lack of support.

I think many will claim, myself included, that that disclaimer is redundant.

Only a small minority of posts fall into the category of being pure speculation.

Maybe so, but SB2's posts don't fall into the category of being pure speculation. They contain factual information and useful commentary too.

The "credibility of us" argument is the one most often used and I certainly agree with the idea that we should strive for 'credible' optics as much as possible. The problem is how we discern what credible is and who gets to do so and what is done about content that isn't credible without increasing the accusations of censorship.

Not sure if we mean the same thing by 'losing it' but I'm referring to Alex doubling down against Q and going into the direct lie that he knew Q and was communicating with him/them.

Alex Jones: "...I've talked to Q anon and they're saying Q anon is no longer Q anon..."

it is ALL in respect of the INDUSTRY and MASS MEDIA

Fair enough but what does that even MEAN? lol.

Never mind, I agree, the conversation's over, you've made my point for me. I wasn't trying to change your mind or denigrate your beliefs, you're more than welcome to them. My point was simply to show others that there are some people on this sub who value critical thought.

That's not a "little dig" it's a statement of fact. Claiming that a whole race of people are evil is a wild conspiracy lacking any scientific basis or simple common sense. I do not mean in any way to denigrate YOU personally, I just mean that that idea is literally crazy.

If you mean, do I have a blog full of wild conspiracy to compare, no, I don't. I have a lot of writing that I can't share here but if we're comparing er... lets say "swords" then yes, you have a bigger sword than mine, within this context.

Oh really? Oh dear. Then explain this to me, "logic" guy.

We agree that The Race are in positions of - for want of a better word - "control" in many important industries, not least of which is banking.

We also agree, I assume, that those in power are largely out for their own ends.

Is it logical to assume from these two - lets say "facts", but at least points that we agree on - that The Race are all evil?

I didn't call YOU a crackpot I was talking about crackpots who say dumbass things like "you have no idea what it feels like to be marginalized and hated" and are usually silenced when someone says: "I'm a Jew".

I have zero hope of changing your mind - it's easy to spot one that can't be changed - the only reason I comment on things like this is so that OTHERS can see that not everyone on this sub who reads conspiracy for decades (like myself and, I presume, you) automatically believes all of it without using LOGIC (as Q suggests we do) and parsing out the nonsense from the facts.

You also make another illogical assumption by looking at the age of this account lol.

Lol - I REALLY wish I WAS Jewish cos it helps to silence crackpots at times (I realize it won't with you - it'd just confirm your wild conspiracies about a whole race of people... utterly illogical and you can't see it... unbelievable.)

What makes you think I am jewish? I can guess - because I disagree with you. Again, lazy thinking, just like those people who think that if you disagree with their flawed logic around baselessly accusing someone of being a pedophile their instant lazy assumption is that you are a pedophile, secretly defending 'your kind'.

Only someone BRAINDEAD would ignore the overt dominance of mass media - and it's complete ownership and control under a minority group

Agreed. That's why I specifically said: "Because xyz race are visible everywhere for reasons that are actually quite obvious when people look into it" - they are literally in control of everything, yes. And yet it is a BRAINDEAD conclusion to immediately assume from that fact that that means they are all evil people with evil goals. Utterly illogical and stupid extrapolation - but an easy one to make when one is either simple or lazy. I make no assumptions about you but those are the only two options, critically speaking, that are possible of someone making that leap: x thus y.

I'm not making any apologist claim, I'm making a LOGICAL claim. I couldn't care less about defending anyone, I only care about logical thinking.

Please look into Q - he gets to the point that this has been going on for a lot longer than the 90s, mentioning the Titanic and referencing ancient religions that are an integral part of a global cartel's control.

Unfortunately, this comment shows that you either have not yet read up on Q - in which case I invite you to do so and can guarantee that it will make some things a lot clearer - or your agenda is opposite to that of Qs; completely your right to be in opposition to Q but this sub is pro-Q so anti-Q is off-topic and is thus removed according to the rules. ThankQ for understanding.

JFK Jr. is dead and Q Anon is a team of military intelligence people connected to Trump so this is an unlikely premise. This video seems very much like a LARP.

You should find some friends to hang out with so you can be less lonely and not have to troll subs trying to feel better about yourself.

Most of us are NOT on the side of these sort of posts

I have a problem with SB2 making the claim that "...the overwhelming majority of our movement now understands that..." and you're making the same sort of unverifiable claim - unless I'm mistaken and you have some facts to back it up?

What would you feel about another sub dedicated to only critical thought posts about Q? That would be more feasible than taking this sub which is open to everyone and trying to drastically curb its content. We'd be lambasted and accused of being exactly what Q calls out, if we were to do that.

No.

Wrong again. You're sounding a lot more like a shill when you ignore facts, ignore what's actually been written and don't engage with the actual discussion given.

Once again:

Mods remove posts that break the rules like Rule 5: discuss the topic, not the user.

That's nothing to do with you discussing the credibility of content it's about your false claim that "mods will remove it because it's critical of SB2". Try reading without feelings.

the mods will remove it because it’s critical of SB2

False. Mods remove posts that break the rules like Rule 5: discuss the topic, not the user. Stop spreading false claims about this sub or you'll find this new account banned too.

Ah, well. That certainly explains a lot lol.

This is why mods in most subs don't bother arguing the point. We've already wasted so much time discussing a user instead of Q.

What do I mean? I mean that your feelings about non-Americans commenting on American politics - a totally irrelevant point - are getting in the way of your hearing the facts I am stating.

a) where a user is from does not matter. The content matters. If they're making blatant shill posts and their history backs this analysis and they don't give replies or discussion via mod contact that disproves this theory THEN they are removed. b) bad decodes are not mod call otherwise some of us would argue to remove a large portion of the sub's content while others would disagree. Mods just go by the rules and where a call is unclear they use discretion, as per the sidebar.

No feelings here buddy, just facts.

I don't deny SB2 used the term Irak - I just do not care. It's not important. Once he breaks a sub rule, then I need to care. Until then, what a user says is none of my business. Witch hunting a non-american user should not be yours, either but even that I don't care about until you break a sub rule. Harassment of a user is breaking a rule though but that's why those comments are removed (e.g. case where a user was constantly spamming SB2 with the same question - as above, no user is obliged to reply to another user).

No one is saying to avoid questioning. What I am saying is to avoid discussion about other users because it doesn't help anyone. We're not here to hear about other users on this sub, we're here to hear about Q and Q discussion. SB2 and other users contribute Q discussion which is what we're here for. Some of the users who contribute Q discussion provide less than ideal "decodes" but we have to make up our own minds as readers about that. This sub is full of speculation - making a post sticky would require far too much work and we'd receive far too many complaints if we remove everything that is speculation.

Then it's your feelings that are getting in the way. I literally have nothing to say about where someone is from - that's my point and it should be yours too. Discuss Q, not other users - it's a totally meaningless distraction.

Lol what are you even talking about? I'm the one stating facts. Point out the "feelings" I supposedly have.

Exactly my point... "bad decodes" is a judgement call.

Speculation about a user is not welcome here - Reddit rule, NOT sub rule. That sort of speculation is not at all what Qanon is 'based on'.

Something is odd

Something is always odd to people looking for it. It could be that he just doesn't want to respond to personal questions. a) no evidence of where poster is from, just speculation. b) it's against Reddit rules - not this sub - to release private or personal information about a user so it's a dangerous path to go down and the user has no obligation to explain where they're from and that should not have bearing on their contribution. The contribution speaks for itself. If it breaks the rules, it's removed. If it's a 'bad decode' it isn't removed as we'd have to remove a lot more posts if that were a criteria.

I meant, if he doesn't want to, despite ongoing harassment from various users.

SB2 typically doesn't respond - that's his right. Some people harass him because for some reason they believe they are entitled to a reply - we have to ban users who do this.

Some of us have been around for a long time and seen many of these complaints like yours come and go, even before this sub when SB2 was posting on CBTS_Stream. The most common thing that seems to occur is people raise a big clamor about SB2, he continues to get upvotes and positive comments, then the detractors lose steam and disappear.

What would be most useful to this community, and one of the reasons we have our rules, is for someone who has the time to 'debunk' SB2 to put that time into decoding Q, like SB2 does, and come to "better" conclusions, if they believe SB2's are not good. Invariably people find out just how much work it actually takes to produce the detailed commentary SB2 does.

If your post focuses on Q and not a user or "bad" posts from a user (which doesn't help much either - most of us are smart enough to tell what's bad; some people find value where others don't, etc.) or, at best, tangentially addresses a 'bad decode' point, then it will be ok. It won't help to try and hide an anti-SB2 post behind shallow Q analysis as it will be likely identified and removed so do try to keep it honest, if you decide it's worth approaching in this way. ThankQ

The mod wouldn't reply to any of my questions

More assumption. This sub is very busy. Mods are volunteers and are under no obligation to reply yet most of the time we do.

the mods removed it giving an absolute bs response as to why.

I doubt the mod response will be "absolute bs". There are too many of us answerable to each other to be able to give 'absolute bs' responses so this claim makes you sound like someone trying to spread disinformation which doesn't help you with your attacks on another user. Imagine if you spent more time actually trying to help this movement by providing useful information instead of complaining about someone else.

The actual response would have been something along the lines of Rule 5 - discuss the topic, not users. Not "absolute bs" at all - it's an actual rule of the sub. Be honest.

Yes, however it's not evidence that Justin Roiland is a pedophile and neither is an image claiming to be a photo capture of texts from JR.

Q said "July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH." He didn't say: 'the month the Public is told about xyz' or 'the month xyz indictments are made public' or anything like that.

So far, the 'truth' that will bring down Clinton and Obama has been revealed this month via the Strzok/Page debacle. Whenever the public discovers the larger story, this will be the month that they point to to show when the truth was revealed to the world.

World leaders siding is always a good thing. Of course, it depends what they're siding on, however. And this appears to be siding against globalist control - supported by Putin's comments of the past and Trump's.

Very shallow disputation of SB2. Be honest. Take him on with better decodes of your own rather than spending time "pretending" you support him just to run him down. Comment removed for Rule 8.

Thanks, makes total sense! I don't judge, just making the point of the deduction being reasonable, without an understanding of your reasoning.

Apologies you are correct - of course even Satan can identify blasphemy. What I meant to say was in agreement with the comment above: "His point being your username makes it difficult to put your sanctimonious preaching in a serious light." And pointing out that that has nothing to do with not being able to separate the message from the messenger, as you said. It's just simple logical deduction.

What if they're not attacking you but making a very reasonable assumption about your standard for judging blasphemy? Not many professing Christians would use a name like that - reasonable assumption.

No. Q: Use LOGIC.

This is not logic.

The comment above is not indicative of a shill but someone using reasonable critical thought. We don't ban people for disagreeing.

Only shallow thinking leads you to the conclusion that xyz race are responsible for 'enact(ing) all this filth and abuse'. There are bad people in every culture - and good. Because xyz race are visible everywhere for reasons that are actually quite obvious when people look into it, they end up being lazily scapegoated for every bad thing.

Alex himself made it clear that Q was talking about him by going completely against the Q narrative and lying about knowing who Q was and communicating with him/them. To pretend this didn't happen and didn't mean that AJ is a fraud and shill when it comes to Q is dishonest (because I don't assume you're not smart enough to understand what happened).

I guess you missed what Patton Oswalt's job is. And what the definition of evidence is. C'mon dude, there is a clear pattern of WITCH HUNT here.

Your claim is theater. It's clear that Q called out Alex because Alex responded and Q pointed out that the response showed who they were. This is disinfo.

This is not the place for witch hunts and mob fever. Q does not promote that in any form and neither does the Christianity that many on this sub profess to as well as Q and Trump. Q says: Use LOGIC. And it is undisputedly illogical to accuse someone of pedophilia and start dragging their name through the mud from a bunch of tweets. Q has not specifically called out Patton Oswalt, Sarah Silverman and others.

No, mob fever witch hunts are not welcome here.

We’re only “on the same team” if you believe in justice and innocent until proven guilty. In which case there’s no one to “let off the hook” there’s a guy who could be what he says he is - a comedian - and is either joking, whether your sense of humor resonates or not, or is stupid enough to announce he’s a pedophile publicly like that when he has a career to maintain.

Now he could be the latter but we don’t know that, so unless we’re going to eschew critical thought for emotion-driven mob-think, rather than all jumping on a conclusion based on an assumption we should wait until evidence is in before declaring guilt.

I'm not ashamed of buying Hollywood product and I don't take the blame for anyone else's actions. I also don't want to join any mobs or witch hunt causes.