You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] flaxom 5 points -5 points (+0|-5) ago 

What am I shilling exactly? Common sense, brainpower, critical thinking? Please do make use of those things.

You're the one telling people, without providing any evidence, that they're supposed to buy into some fucking bogus narrative that's CLEARLY DESIGNED AS DISINFO. So you're the one shilling, and slinging your tired insults at me only proves it. You could convince me that Q was real like I've asked but instead you deflect, insult, and keep on shilling your psyop like a little faggot.


[–] AdmirableNelson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Look at this post. Does this unreasonable nastiness make it more likely that Q is legit, or less? Shilling is kind of dumb...


[–] flaxom 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I bit my tongue for fucking three months watching this Q bullshit grow more and more, and finding it more and more ridiculous every day. So now I'm called a shill by a bunch of retards who can't into critical thinking and are falling for the most obvious larpy bullshit I've seen in years. Sorry if you find my arguments to be nasty but they're not getting nicer as I get called a fucking shill over and over by people unable to defend their assertions.


[–] Blacksmith21 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago

Spend some time with the links at the bottom. Then come back with an argument that involves more than ad hominem attacks backed up by nothing other than "fucking bogus", "designed as disinfo", "tired insults".

You do realize - or maybe you don't - that you are using every "trick" in the book to float your argument. I have a better idea - why don't you pick one of the more specific Q posts and show evidence which disputes it?

I won't hold my breath...


[–] flaxom 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You're asking me to prove a negative. I'll just say that any specific prediction Q has made has fallen flat, which is what I said in a previous post. I've also refuted each of those links at the bottom of the linked post, with very little effort. Feel free to argue with me about it there if you want.

We all want the things Q is talking about to be real, and I suspect much of it is. But Q conveniently leaves out a lot of critical facets and also leaves the bulk of the messaging up to interpretation, which only strikes me as intentional misdirection.