Talk about Q being AI (known as a “bot” in older software work) was forbidden on CBTS yesterday. In conspiracy tale circles, AI is evil. ;-)
When we’re lacking information, my opinion sometimes changes with new information being revealed. Most men will avoid changing their opinions, even in situation like this. The exception would be men who have worked much with logic.
It’s the lack of information in some cases—not an indecisive personality. I’ve written code before and have done other jobs that required much problem solving. Other kinds of work required faster decisions at times, so adaptation and rough calculations of odds were necessary.
The Q mystery is a fun little problem as long as information slips through a little at a time, and as long as no excessive reader time is wasted. IMO, the best policy for political speech is honesty. One only needs to learn to make each message concise and clear, in some cases along with many repetitions.
Some people and groups choose to use whatever methods of political speech that appear to have been successful in the past. The way of historical fascists, for example, with political speech appears to be very effective when the initial success is highlighted.
Problem is, it tends to install a fragile paradigm of thought processes in its target: the masses. After its initial success, it falls apart easily under logical scrutiny from honest people who knew about something being wrong with the speech all along.
The two major sides in the ongoing political dispute here are using historically flawed speech methods of the past to various extents. The Democrats are using it for worse reasons, but focusing too exclusively on outcomes can hurt any effort before long.
You said: “Talk about Q being AI (known as a “bot” in older software work) was forbidden on CBTS yesterday. In conspiracy tale circles, AI is evil. ;-) “
I said: Evil? Try irrelevant.
You: “When we’re lacking information, my opinion sometimes changes with new information being revealed. Most men will avoid changing their opinions, even in situation like this. The exception would be men who have worked much with logic.”
Me: I don’t seem to share your low opinion of people or your high opinion of “men who have worked much with logic.”
You: “The Q mystery is a fun little problem as long as information slips through a little at a time, and as long as no excessive reader time is wasted.”
ME: Q is more than a fun little problem to whose who value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You: “IMO, the best policy for political speech is honesty.”
Me: Isn’t that the best policy for any type of speech?
You: “One only needs to learn to make each message concise and clear, in some cases along with many repetitions.”
Me: Q has really impressed me in his/their ability to make concise statements upon which Americans have researched mass quantities of important details regarding the astounding level of corruption in our society and governments world wide. Q asks a few concise questions and thousands of people compile maps and tables revealing more of the swamp.
You: “Some people and groups choose to use whatever methods of political speech that appear to have been successful in the past. The way of historical fascists, for example, with political speech appears to be very effective when the initial success is highlighted.”
Me: And some, like Trump, choose to avoid whatever methods of political speech that appear to have failed in the past. He knew about the MSM and their enablers and how they drove false perceptions 24/7 so he decided to side-step them via Twitter. It worked - the public is onboard with hearing his unvarnished text. Since that is successful, Q arrives using the same method- bypass the MSM completely.
You: “Problem is, it tends to install a fragile paradigm of thought processes in its target: the masses. After its initial success, it falls apart easily under logical scrutiny from honest people who knew about something being wrong with the speech all along.”
Me: Trump has side-stepped the fragile paradigm. With the masses all performing their own research based on clues, all choosing their own sources of info and persisting in collection until they have the information they need - their knowledge base is anything but a fragile paradigm. Q points, the masses educate themselves and later when the MSM says it’s all lies, the masses have reams of their own research upon which to base their own analysis.
You: “The two major sides in the ongoing political dispute here are using historically flawed speech methods of the past to various extents. The Democrats are using it for worse reasons, but focusing too exclusively on outcomes can hurt any effort before long.”
Me: Project Mockingbird is flying along as usual and Trump’s alternative methodology is defeating it. Personally, I like focusing on outcomes.