I’m a holdout. I don’t believe Tyler=Q.
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.