Sooo..... this is a proposition that free speech be restrained, right? You have an opinion about Q but you shouldn't express it unless it conforms to a certain perspective?
"Stop treating people who post on GA like they don't belong here..."
"Participating in this public shaming of Q followers is actively choosing to help democrats..."
Seems pretty plain to me: Certain thoughts are not to be expressed.
Could be, but at least I can see what's in plain English in front of my face. I can think bad things about certain people but I'm encouraged to keep those thoughts to myself otherwise I'm "...actively choosing to help democrats split and divide " etc etc
You can bring something to this discussion about free speech or you can call me more names. Up to you.
If people really wanted to dissuade others from Q, they would actually address the Q posts and proofs. But instead they just use the usual corporate media shame and straw man tactics. Problem is none of that works on the kind of people who gave Q a read in the first place. It would instead take an actual logical argument and a legitimate debunking of specific proofs. I think the reason this doesn’t happen is anyone who tries to do this eventually realizes Q isn’t what CNN makes it appear to be. Q actually asks very valuable questions and directs people towards valid research and information. A lot of times Q links to original sources, like actual declassified documents or government websites or military manuals. Like a typical Q post would link to a specific declassified document and say something like, “Read pages 67 through 72”, then he would link to an official CDC document with another important piece of information, then he would say, “Reconcile”. Then it was up to anons to do this research themselves and start sharing what they think Q is telling us. Do people see why just yelling “LARP” is so ineffective against that? It’s like, “Is the declassified document not real? Is the CDC document not real? Is the discussion this generated and the dots people are now connecting not real?”
I am not even saying people should believe one thing or another about Q. It’s a free country so believe what you want. But if want to know why all of the insults and censorship isn’t having the suppression effect you thought it would, that is why. Most people at this point don’t even care who Q is because the posts speak for themselves, just as text on a screen. It’s like telling a Shakespeare scholar that Shakespeare was a black dude, or gay, or a theater collective that wrote plays by committee. At a certain point it’s not that relevant because the plays are still the plays and they are appreciated for what they are: words assembled in order to make a point. All the mysteries and theories about who the real Shakespeare was are going to be secondary to that.
Sooo..... this is a proposition that free speech be restrained, right? You have an opinion about Q but you shouldn't express it unless it conforms to a certain perspective?
Let me point it out to you:
Seems pretty plain to me: Certain thoughts are not to be expressed.
Could be, but at least I can see what's in plain English in front of my face. I can think bad things about certain people but I'm encouraged to keep those thoughts to myself otherwise I'm "...actively choosing to help democrats split and divide " etc etc
You can bring something to this discussion about free speech or you can call me more names. Up to you.
If people really wanted to dissuade others from Q, they would actually address the Q posts and proofs. But instead they just use the usual corporate media shame and straw man tactics. Problem is none of that works on the kind of people who gave Q a read in the first place. It would instead take an actual logical argument and a legitimate debunking of specific proofs. I think the reason this doesn’t happen is anyone who tries to do this eventually realizes Q isn’t what CNN makes it appear to be. Q actually asks very valuable questions and directs people towards valid research and information. A lot of times Q links to original sources, like actual declassified documents or government websites or military manuals. Like a typical Q post would link to a specific declassified document and say something like, “Read pages 67 through 72”, then he would link to an official CDC document with another important piece of information, then he would say, “Reconcile”. Then it was up to anons to do this research themselves and start sharing what they think Q is telling us. Do people see why just yelling “LARP” is so ineffective against that? It’s like, “Is the declassified document not real? Is the CDC document not real? Is the discussion this generated and the dots people are now connecting not real?”
I am not even saying people should believe one thing or another about Q. It’s a free country so believe what you want. But if want to know why all of the insults and censorship isn’t having the suppression effect you thought it would, that is why. Most people at this point don’t even care who Q is because the posts speak for themselves, just as text on a screen. It’s like telling a Shakespeare scholar that Shakespeare was a black dude, or gay, or a theater collective that wrote plays by committee. At a certain point it’s not that relevant because the plays are still the plays and they are appreciated for what they are: words assembled in order to make a point. All the mysteries and theories about who the real Shakespeare was are going to be secondary to that.