Who would do such a dastardly thing?
Lemme attem'
Bagster
Good morning, FReeQs!
I was thinking about newbies asking questions. They show up and ask things like “when will HRC be arrested?” or “where is Assange?” and want answers.
Sometimes we “know” the answer. I “know” that Sessions is a white hat, not only because Q says “Trust Sessions” but also because of evidence that one can see when one’s eyes are open and looking for it. (Example: the “coincidence” of Sessions being in Little Rock to talk about school security, then planeloads of evidence boxes flying out of Little Rock shortly after.) Is it possible that Sessions is either a black hat or a dud? Yes. But not very probably in my mind.
Sometimes we disagree and argue about the answer. Mueller and Rosenstein - white, black, gray hats? Or some other color?!
I think the arguments and disagreements are IMPORTANT! It’s what separates us from the MSM which dispenses the “correct” views and answers to the waiting and gullible sheeple.
Should we argue until we reach a consensus? NO! It’s nice to know what the consensus is. It’s nice to hash things out, but let’s not try to force everyone into lock step agreement. As long as people are not posting lies, and as long as people are not making personal attacks on other posters, let’s encourage disagreement and argument. (Consensus is how we got “climate change”.)
I hope I will lay out my case for questions like “when will HRC be arrested” without trying to force others to agree with me and without taking it personally when they don’t. (Yeah, I will agree to disagree on some things. No fag. as *someone* here would call me for saying “agree to disagree”.) I hope I will persuade people with my arguments and evidence, but I hope I will NOT browbeat them into going along with my view.
Q is trying to teach us to argue with facts and to entertain possibilities. But even Q is not the be-all, end-all authority on everything. We need to always think for ourselves. And isn’t that the point?
Good post!
Excellent points and well-stated, generally. I can’t disagree with anything you have said.
Who would do such a dastardly thing?
Lemme attem'
Bagster
It’s nice to hash things out, but let’s not try to force everyone into lock step agreement.
__________________________________
I don’t believe we try to force everyone into lock-step agreement. At the start of this thread there was a mix of answers to a visitor without problem. I’ve seen interesting, healthy debate on topics in your post.
Some equate rebuttal with attack. If we accept and encourage without rebuttal those who advocate views that run contrary to the core purpose of our thread, we lose our thread. “Open borders” and the equal embrace of fundamentally opposing ideology often causes loss of identity, in a country or a thread.
There are so many threads available to those who wish to advocate/recruit for the logic/opinion that Q is not real, is a larp etc., but this is the only thread where we can assert, support, and research Q’s strategy and purposes in relative peace.
That “relative peace” is hard won. We underwent months of intense trolling and demands our threads be deleted. We were over-run with those of opposing opinions to the point where the thread almost failed a few times because it was hard to locate research posts among all those insisting that we were stupid/crazy/gullible and that Q threads must not be tolerated on FR.
That’s the problem right there. The insistence that we embrace and cultivate arguments on this thread that Q is invalid/fake/a larp are followed (or accompanied by) demands that Q threads be prohibited and thread-overrun.
If I went out to the forum right now and posted on another thread that Q is real and drops are informative, my ideas are unlikely to be embraced, encouraged and cultivated as equally valid. I’ve seen many pro-Q threads on the forum posted by other FReepers locked because “There’s already a Q thread,” but I’ve not seen a limit on anti-Q threads.
You said, “I hope I will NOT browbeat them into going along with my view.” I don’t think browbeating people into going along with our views is the real problem. We’ve been ridiculed as crazy/stupid/gullible for so many months that we are (naturally) often in “defend-our-thread” mode because we remember those months when our thread was like the rest of the (anti) Q threads in the forum.
I recommend we give visitors (more) time to ask questions before deciding to mitigate anticipated thread disruption or anti-Q recruitment efforts by avoiding them or deeming them trolls. Disruptors and visitors may ask exactly the same questions or express the same doubts. Directing them to review provided links may be the most interesting, welcoming way to help noobs check out Q in relative comfort (high quality content). I think FAQ pages linked from the thread table can help. Some legitimate visitors today may be those whom used to troll our threads in the past. We don’t always know how to welcome visitors or discern guest from troll, we’ve made mistakes, but we are learning.
To add to what you were saying about newbie questions, I lurked on these threads for at least three weeks before I started to have ANY real abstract model in my mind of what is going on—absorbing content, making connections, seeing topics turn up repeatedly, connecting back. That’s why these people who spend an hour researching the queue phenomenon and then write articles debunking it crack me up.
I do think we have a prime opportunity to up our game regarding visitor/FReeQ relations.
The Alinsky tactic of ridicule backfires when dealing with people whom are or are mistaken for, trolls. They may have used that tactic on us elsewhere, or on this thread, but responding with Alinsky ridicule (e.g., that they are stupid, clueless etc.) can inadvertently insult lurkers or visitors with legitimate version of the same questions. I make the case for the fact that people who have a hard time beleiving that Q is real are not stupid in this long (sorry!) post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3674854/posts?page=1#1
Other than that, I focused my prior response to you on what I believe is the “biggest” problem (thread identity) because it’s most difficult to articulate and therefore address, but I otherwise agree with your idea that we can agree to disagree on many topics and we can always grow to become better at it.
Exactly, we question, we search, we find answers that seem right and then find more information that refutes or confirms our thoughts. Sometime we go with a gut feeling, we are always able to consider the conclusions of others too.
It is about thinking and reasoning for ourselves. Many of our assumptions will be proven at some time and I look forward to that day. I get a little anxious following the Q threads because I just want it to happen but when I look back to the beginning I see how much more we all know.
It sure beats listening to MSM.