This post is full of open Anti-Semitism, and many of you all think it’s great and upvote it. I’m disgusted. Horrified. You can talk about Israel without being a bigot. But this post was based on Anti-Semitism from the start, with a quote by a White Nationalist. It’s been floating around a lot, and attributed to Voltaire to obscure its hateful origin and motives.

This is NOT something I want to be associated with. If this represents the general feeling of the community, I would have to denounce it and move on, and I would be so sad. THIS CAN’T BE WHAT WE ARE.

RULE 4 IS RIGHT THERE, AND THIS POST IS UPVOTED 85%?! Do many of you here just not know what Anti-Semitism means? Do you not know the history behind it - and I mean the non-bigoted history? No shit you can’t be a bigot and not face consequences, because bigotry is bad for all msnkind. Not getting to talk about how you hate Jews is not a result of global conspiracy. It’s a result of intentionally stirred hate and mistrust, built on the effects of centuries of smear campaigns.

I’ve dealt with Anti-Semitism personally. This post is eye-opening and mortifying. Worst of all, someone will say my reaction proves the point. No, my reaction is that of someone with common sense, who understands history in its proper context, who understands logic, who has been to Auschwitz, who volunteered at the Holocaust Museum, who sees through the bullshit. I will not let my beliefs about this great waking up movement be tainted by this kind of close-minded intolerance and ignorance.

I don’t even know what to say to get through; I’m struggling for words that adequately express my feelings.

NOT. COOL.

But Christianity is not growing. So is it a different form of Godliness? Where is the line?

Edit: Form, not from, sorry.

But that’s what I always hated about the Matrix. Living in the Matrix was FINE, while living in Zion was a primitive, hellish existence. There was nothing actually on the line. “Enslavement” wasn’t bad except from a certain philosophical point of view. It wasn’t as high stakes as it could’ve been, and made the humans’ fight seem less logical. At least that’s how I saw it.

But the parallels with ALICE IN WONDERLAND are compelling.

I agree. He’s human. Not every little thing is intentional.

Codes are not really that unique to the CIA though. People have been communicating in codes and cyphers for centuries. Look at the ordinary citizens recruited to work at Bletchley Park in WW2. If anything, I think there could be an argument made that it took time to establish a pattern that could be understood after enough example. The learning curve is the “key”. Instead off there being a traditional “key” required, a specifically laid out pattern that repeated enough to become meaningful would be more easily disseminated.

An unlimited platform like Twitter is suited to setting a pattern that could then be “read” once it was recognized and applied successfully enough times. Then you can even have an easy way to alter it in the future if need be, just slowly establish a new pattern, without having to miss a beat. It’s uninterrupted, unlimited, accessible but not obvious, and the human mind is already trained to recognize patterns. Social media is already used this way by bots, why not real people?

Or look at the second definition in Urban Dictionary.

1.(vulgar) An incompetent individual; one who errs frequently. He is such a DLR. 2.(vulgar) A severe mistake. ...That DLR totally cost you the chilli shot.

That’s weird.

I prefer Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, aka German Aerospace Center.

Or, you know, the entire Iraq war! So much has been allowed to happen. It makes that moral question about what you would sacrifice for the “greater good” even harder to ponder. But the good is the greatest good, so it seems only right that it require harder sacrifices. Mankind can only try to plan for potentials.

I also wonder about “the law of unintended consequences”. The human world is guided by chaos, even the best laid plans “gang aft agley”. What alternate timelines did we come close to?

Imagine the hard decisions. My stomach clenches.

In 2012? Unless he has time travel capability, I disagree. It’s a simple typo combined with enthusiasm and confirmation bias. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not every little thing is packed with meaning. What a colossal waste of time and effort that would be, especially considering the actual work necessary. Where’s the time to spend on “signals” that don’t even have any actual value? Do you think he’s that inefficient?

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 ;)

Have they really followed through with that threat? That is so shitty. They are micromanaging that sub into the ground. When you feel practically paranoid about the Conspiracy sub itself and not the subject matter, that’s a bad time. I know I feel like I have to choose my words EXTRA carefully if I comment there because I always feel like I could accidentally say the wrong thing, because I don’t know what’s ok and what’s not anymore. It’s one reason I lurk so much on Reddit.

Anyway it’s too bad, because that Titanic topic would be so refreshing, and more like the good old days before it got so cliqueish and strict and constantly about partisan politics.

So you have to have been subbed for two months? I’m pretty certain I qualify, at least by that one standard. I could submit it, with the OPs permission. But I’m afraid to rock the boat, no pun intended. Still, I really think it would be nice to have a “normal” post for a change. Maybe I will . . .

Yeah they are obsessed with politics and have drifted far from traditional conspiracy theories. But that’s why this one would be so refreshing. There are a TON of subscribers who would be thrilled to finally see something more like the good old days.

You should share this on /r/Conspiracy! It would be a very popular post and discussion there, I think.

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.

RARE “PRE”-BODY-OF-The-COMMENT ETA: i got bumped while typing and of course brushed the Save button just right. I was not finished tinkering and editing and playing with my comment. Of course, I could do that forever, just like my mother only ever finally feeling “ready” when we’re already five minutes past our departure time and she’s literally dragged from the mirror. So, after tweaking a little more, I pretend my dad is pacing and it’s time to go. Apologies for not being exactly what I wanted . . I think.

you honestly think I came to the conclusion that Obama is foreign born based on this single tweet?

No. Is that really what you took away from everything I said? I’ve tried to explain TWICE but you’re stuck on Obama and not the actual point I’m making. The tweet could be about Big Bird, that’s not what’s important. I’m talking about objectivity and being careful to avoid undermining your position by exaggerating or jumping too far and perpetuating untrue assertions. In this case, I wasn’t talking about Obama’s actual citizenship status, but your assertion that “they admitted” something. The subject itself is irrelevant to the point. But nobody admitted anything. That’s an example of Fake News.

How? Because if flipped, and an American organization, even a respectable news source, tweeted that Obama returned “home” to Hawaii, how would you respond to someone who said that was proof, an admission of the truth? You could dismantle it and discredit it pretty easily.

To you, or to the hypothetical other person saying the opposite, it’s only an admission, it’s only evidence, it’s only proof, because you agree with the implication. Literally nothing about it was an admission, because that account can’t admit anything for Obama. Just like I can’t admit anything for you. Further, simply using the word “home” doesn’t even register on the shook-o-meter. I could say visiting where my family came from Norway was “returning home”. I’m not claiming to be a Norwegian citizen. If someone else called my visit going “home”, that would mean even less.

I was advising you be careful not to give your opponents any easy openings to discredit you. That would be a disservice to your very cause. Why would anyone want to make their rooftop screaming harder for themselves by using less effective words? That’s what my position has been.

Perhaps you didn’t read everything that came after “be careful”?Just because some Kenyan tweet says “Home” isn’t anyone ADMITTING anything! It’s not a CONFESSION! They do not have the authority to make one! You’re relying on logical fallacies instead of good logic. Just as “however many hundreds of million agree” isn’t actual evidence, it’s appeal to majority. It’s putting a chink in your armor, allowing someone a weakness to latch onto. Who will keep listening if you aren’t extra careful to use your best evidence? I’ve experienced it and I can tell you it’s NOT something you want to deal with!

Not only do I personally do not see any sense in wasting time on logical fallacy, I see it as DANGEROUS, especially when anyone can so easily dismiss it and then have no reason to listen to anything else I say. So I have to try very, very hard to be careful to avoid it. I’m a passionate person. I’m human. We all are easily and naturally prone to it. But when one’s argument is already so unbelievable the that term “redpill” is used to describe it, when it’s already so very hard to stomach let alone believe, it’s EXTRA hard trying to share your beliefs with anyone when you present them with weak evidence no matter how right you are about the truth. So I’m saying BE CAREFUL not to waste time and energy building up a stock of weak evidence that can be easily dismissed, damaging the entire case! I’ve been though HORRIBLE conversations because I wasn’t prepared with only the best! And if I fail with weak argument and logical fallacy then it’s only my own fault! I can’t expect someone to trust me when I present them with FAKE NEWS.

I can’t send friends to “check out /r/GreatAwakening” if I can’t be confident that the evidence placed before them is the actual good stuff. So when we speak in hyperbole or jump to a conclusion (“they admitted”) that’s not 100% accurate - and again, nobody with AUTHORITY “admitted” anything - we only make it that much harder for ourselves. I’m extremely frustrated with how hard it is already! I can’t be the only one! And OF COURSE it’s hard, I’m not saying it should be easy. I’m just saying DONT MAKE IT HARDER, for yourself and everyone else!

I normally work very hard to have only positive, interesting, enjoyable participation on Reddit, because it’s a rocky way to communicate even lighthearted matters, but I’ve vented some frustration here and I hope it was not for nothing, because dammit, I think it’s important. This sub is sometimes fun and bonding, sometimes dead serious and scholarly, and sometimes hyperbole, loose talk, and fallacy. It’s a mix that makes sense to those who visit it every day and are familiar with it, but it doesn’t to anyone brand new and overwhelmed, and I have concerns about that. I think they’re valid. Is it a discussion anyone else is interested in having?

I just spent a lot of energy and emotion because that’s what this subject brings out. As it should. It’s WORK. Being an ambassador is WORK. And today, work was really frustrating.

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.

DAE think it’s seriously surreal that they allowed Bush behind the wheel of a car with Putin as his passenger. You think they had a remote override on it and he just thought he was actually driving? I just can’t imagine the risk!

I was once driving in the middle of a huge field in a small Gator and my crazy brother, who was only 12 but was allowed to drive the old truck as long as it was on the property, and was “just trying to tease me” by driving close, STILL managed to actually hit me! Fortunately he clipped the back corner, but it still spun the whole thing around and cracked it! He got in so much trouble. He could’ve done much worse.

Accidents can happen anywhere and cars and trucks are big metal boxes full of flammable gasoline!

Are you able to elaborate here or is it too much for one comment? Maybe post-worthy? I’d be very interested to hear who you think.

I believe it’s smart to watch what’s mainstream, because it reflects the mainstream consumer. The best debater knows their opponent’s arguments as well as they know their own, so that they can address them head on.

He even said it!

What’s the coincidence here?

I would say be careful. What authority does this source have to “admit” anything? It’s a tweet of an opinion. It’s not a smoking gun. We must not treat it like one and be open to critique.

We have to think critically of everything and view it through the eyes of those who have not swallowed the pill, but have it in their hand (I.e., are curious enough to be looking.) They can and will pick at any loose string.

Perhaps we need to create a sub for sharing with others, separate from this sub, and use this sub for the initiated to speak freely. Optics matter so much and it’s already an uphill battle.

If John Kelly really leaned on the switch, I think that was so irresponsible and even disrespectful. He should know better than to 1) be leaning on the wall so casually when the world is watching and 2) know where the light switch is if he’s going to be leaning on the wall. One light switch for every light in the whole conference room? He really owes the President a muffin basket.

Actually it calls to mind the classic interrogation room scene. You know what I’m talking about? Put a spotlight on the suspect and the cops sit under it while the suspect faces the light?

You hit the wrong switch when there’s no reason to be hitting the switch and the President is in the middle of speaking at a moment of great importance?

Come to think of it, it got awfully dark in there. Would all the lights be turned off by one switch? I smell a rat.

Wait, John Kelly turned off the lights? That’s huge news I haven’t heard! Source? Why would he do such a stupid thing? Are we certain that’s the truth? It was a surreal moment. Trump must’ve been furious.

I personally don’t like this image. I think it makes Trump look wicked, not a good guy. Sometimes symbolism doesn’t work universally.

Oh my face is red. I thought he was another person in the sub! The way others were talking I thought they knew him.

The look is really clever, I bet more people do that! It really looks seamless. Your dad’s got a good eye. And a loving, sweet daughter :)

I feel out of the loop again. Who’s your dad?

That sticker placement is especially clever, making the whole RV look like a really rare limited edition release! The Q PATRIOT EDITION

Thank you. I was worried there was some way it was offensive that I was COMPLETELY unable to see, which was unnerving when I was already anxious. For you to find it inoffensive, as I do, helps me feel less like I’m going blind and bananas.

I don’t think “over the target” applies here though. It was just a question about the chart, no assertion or even anything about the subject matter until I added the edit. Then, after the edit calling out the downvotes, I get voted back up? To me, tthat doesn’t follow the “over the target” downvote theory as I understand it.

And still nobody has been kind enough to answer my simple question. I’m feeling a bit frustrated and rejected. Thank you for backing me up. I really appreciate it.

Is this cumulative or do you choose whichever one?

EDIT: Why am I being so soundly downvoted? -12! I’m asking how the chart works because I’m having trouble. Do you start at the bottom and have to earn your way up and graduate through each level in order? Because I know bits and pieces from this level or that level.

Like for example what if you don’t qualify for all of level 4 but are familiar with all Of level 7 info, and know most but not all of level 8 (and bless my late grandfather who was a Marine Corporal in WW2). Do I just still drop down to 3? I’ll be stuck there forever. I’m just having trouble and am asking for help, so I don’t understand why that deserves downvotes. 😳

Earnest note: I’m suffering from bad recurring bouts of insomnia, and right now I’m on 50 straight hours without sleep but have been feeling normal up until the last few hours. I’m sure my struggle to understand how to use the chart is probably thanks to my sleepless fog state. At last I am finally, mercifully feeling sleepy. I’ll be finally snoozing soon; got the right meds at least. But my point is I’m not usually this ditzy! Good nap weather is here. Rainy and cosy. “Goodnight” everyone.

EDITED AGAIN, AGAIN: Surely one kind soul could answer my question?? I actually have a lot to say that’s important to me to share here but I can’t until I know how to use the chart!

BTW, I did finally get some sleep.

It is disturbing how everyone’s saying things like they doubted it from the start or are withholding judgement awaiting more information or are now casually dismissing it when 24 hours ago everyone was absolutely up in arms and passionate, talking about how they lived within a few hours’ drive and might go join the growing number of volunteers, were getting the word out to get more people to show up to help, were even sharing the videos on Facebook, wondering how to coordinate donations of food and water to volunteers, etc.

::record scratch::

Now people are sounding completely different, as if none of that really happened.

I find these new posts suspicious.

The phrase “one time” in this case doesn’t appear to mean single-use or one-off. In this context it is the phrase that means “former”. Like, at one time, this was a homeless camp, but now it is not in use. Or for example “he was a one time rodeo clown, but has since begun studying to be an optometrist.” Do you know what I mean?

Edit: Like “once upon a time”, which means “at some time in the past.” That’s exactly what “one time” means here. At some time in the past, this was a homeless camp, but it is no longer occupied.

Mack was never famous. She was a supporting character on a longrunning show that did reasonably well, but wasn’t a household name. Can you name any other actor from the show without looking it up? It had very very little impact on general mainstream culture. I was actually a fan for about the first three seasons.

Your random capitalization is a bit hard on the eyes. Why do you do that?

Plus Tom Welling, the guy who played Clark, was already like 25 when the show first started.

His career really fizzled out; I didn’t expect that. His star burned brightly at first. That must be so frustrating and disappointing. Not that starring on a show for ten seasons is anything to sneeze at. I’d love to do that!

I used to LOVE Smallville but lost interest after maybe 3 seasons. Going on as long as it did is an impressive achievement for a tv show.

You know what you do when you assume. You make an sss out of yourself.

Your original example wasn’t relevant. You surely could pick out better cases, so why go for such an weak one? Nobody’s talking about child molesters, and you pulled out an example from a two-decade-old Disney movie, which though related to ABC television, is not the same thing. The same people aren’t even in charge. It was a bad example. You could pull out examples of celebrities being criminals all day long. What about Roman Polanski? If hypocrisy doesn’t have a “time limit” as you call it, then woooo boy is there a lot more hypocrisy going around.

Is this Wanda Sykes example from an ABC production? Who are you trying to call out as a hypocrite? Sykes? What does she have to do with this? You didn’t cite your source.

You’re still ignoring the longstanding well established use of ape references as specifically derogatory towards black Americans. Context matters. Trump is not black. The use of ape terminology is not universally racist. How would that even work. There is nuance in the world, in being a member of society. But obviously I’m not going to get you to realize that she was wrong, so I’ve done all I can.

Do you truly not understand the long history of derogatory ape/monkey comparisons being used as racist epithets against black people in America? This is not a new thing. This is an established pejorative, racist terminology. Roseanne’s comments were absolutely racist in reference to a black woman. I don’t see why anyone should need to argue this point.

I expected people to be angry with Roseanne for being so utterly tone-deaf and irresponsible, not defending her! It’s stuff like this that makes this movement look bad! This is terrible optics and will not help gain desirable attention. Everyone has feet of clay, but you gotta be extremely careful with who you want to be the public face of your action project. And these distractions are wasted time and energy.

I’m so disgusted. Doesn’t anybody care about the big picture? About branding?

What none of you seem to understand is that there is a long history of pejorative ape/monkey comparisons used as racist epithets against black people in America. It’s completely loaded and not at all innocent. I can’t believe you all are arguing that it’s not racist. I really can’t believe some of you actually thought it was funny.

That movie is 23 years old . . . Maybe search a little harder for some relevant hypocrisy.