you make veiled references to violence
I have done no such thing glowfag.
and then I say, "look we never needed violence, we needed civil disobedience and civic action
All I've been calling for.
Things are worse than they appear and that's on purpose.
Q: Just another ARG larp by the berkley crowd and MIT technocrats sucking israeli and british GCHQ cock.
Are we going to keep going around in circles like this? This is where I ask you what not being pacified looks like, you make veiled references to violence, I say let the people trained to be violent be violent, you back track and say you weren't actually talking about organized violence and then I say, "look we never needed violence, we needed civil disobedience and civic action, which people in the Q crowd have been calling for since the genisis of Q, going so far as to organize take overs of school boards and running for local offices, like Ron Watkins in AZ. "
Are we going to keep going around in circles like this?
This is where I ask you what being pacified looks like (it looks like "trust the plan" instead of civil disobedience), and you make veiled references explicit accusations of people suggesting violence every time someone questions you.
You know what reaction formation is?
Of course you do. And you can be indicted for promoting it.
Of course you do. And you can be indicted for promoting it.
kek what are you even on about now?...
I'm not accusing you of calling for violence. I'm outlining how each and every one of these conversations goes and you've still managed to do exactly what I've outlined. No, I don't want you to be violent, even if you just keep reverse psychologying me. The Q crowds have been droning on and on about going to school board meetings and civil disobedience for years, man. You're fighting a strawman with a mirror here. Q and anons have never suggested not to be disobedient. There is no placation routine. You're suggesting there is and then suggesting that the masses should do exactly what Q and anons have already been suggesting they do for years. It's like you're purposefully going around in circles, even after I outlined exactly how this would play out.
Q is actually a covert military intelligence operation. I'm not sure why people saying this makes you so uncomfortable, despite your cynicism shtick.
This is where I ask you what being pacified looks like (it looks like "trust the plan" instead of civil disobedience), and you make veiled references explicit accusations of people suggesting violence every time someone questions you.
That's because that's what you guys want. What else could you possibly mean? You keep talking about how the idea is to pacify people, but you always end up agreeing that not being pacified looks exactly the same as what Q and anons are suggesting. So which is it, do you agree with Q and anons or are you promoting violence? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This isn't me falling back on accusations that should get people in trouble, this is me pointing out that we're suggesting we do the same exact thing, but you're repeating some jargon about how Q and anons are placating. I'm not sure what else you could possibly mean.
but you always end up agreeing that not being pacified looks exactly the same as what Q and anons are suggesting.
WRONG. Nice try putting words in my mouth bud. I said Q is what it looks like when a government tries to pacify its populace.
I'm not accusing you of calling for violence
Actually, you were dickhead. Thats exactly what you were insinuating.
I was laying out the way these conversations go... I'm not sure how you don't realize that. I thought it was very clear. Calm down.
Q wasn't meant to pacify people. That's what anons were tasked with. The idea is they'll use the chaos and darkness to slip away once again. The reason we can't break out in to riots is because they'll use the opportunity to get away. It's also not good that we would kill each other, obviously. We all agree something should be done, but it has to be done the right way.
You don't understand what's going on. Now we're running in circles claiming neither one understands each other. I think the real trouble is you never stopped to understand us, understand Q or or understand why things are the way they are. We aren't enemies. We're actually on the same side. Infighting is pointless and, frankly, all it really does is help our controllers.
If you have a better idea of how this kind of thing is supposed to go, go ahead and communicate it. I'm sure plenty of people will listen to you. The trouble is I doubt you'll come up with a better plan and even if you come up with something to rival what /ourguys/ are doing, I'm sure you'll be put in the same position I am or people like me, where people denounce you as this or that and you have to wade through the toil and tedium of contending the ignorant.
But, again, I get it, man. Your whole shtick is cynicism. I expect this from you. I just urge you to have conversations with people, not take bait from assholes trying to back you in to a corner (why do you think I'm running you through this, helping you realize what you're actually saying?) and do your own research.
(post is archived)