WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

595

Now it seems like "assume the opposite of what you believe" tends to be more accurate.

Is anyone else picking up this trend as well?

Have the propaganda tactics changed?

Idk, my gut and assumptions keep being tested.

Now it seems like "assume the opposite of what you believe" **tends** to be more accurate. Is anyone else picking up this trend as well? Have the propaganda tactics changed? Idk, my gut and assumptions keep being tested.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 4 pts

Don't fall into a static formula or you'll get duped and turned into a self hating loser by these propagandists. They use dynamically changing subversion and need to keep you agitated for it to work on you. Consider the process of "eternal vigilance" which means you continuously test the correlation of your model. This is equivalent to "model training" in system modeling, or "Habit 7 - Sharpening the Saw" by Stephen Covey.

I'll say this for sure, the subversion at every level has a common thread and it lies on rejecting what you can. Something you can't confirm or reject may not be actual data. Good luck wading through it all, brother.