One shill that I've been noticing a LOT is some variation of this:
"Fuck Rudy Giuliani! He lead us on with all of those fake promises of evidence that never surfaced!"
"Fuck Sidney Powell. We waited for months and she never delivered the kraken!"
"Fuck Bannon! He sat there every day telling us he had the receipts, but then he never delivered them!"
It's a really weird sort of shill that's kind of hard to wrap your head around. I think it's consensus cracking? But it also seems to have a built in presupposition that there was "no substantial evidence of voter fraud".
Has anyone else noticed this? It's just so odd and sticks out like a sore thumb when you see pedes claiming that Rudy, Sidney, Bannon, etc. never delivered any evidence.
I don't know what to make of it.
Edit:
Here are two direct quotes I've read from comments that somehow have 50+ upvotes:
"Screw Pardons. Am still waiting on Rudy to drop his mega-evidence."
"Sidney "Bombshells" Powell says we're going to be shocked when the truth comes out (over the next few weeks)"....that was 2 months ago."
If someone says Fuck X, in an X related thread or post. It's just people venting. As for the latter "Q" shit, blame the mods allowing "greatawakening.win" into the community.
I don't think so, dude.
You're missing the point. They're pretending that there WASNT "bombshell" evidence dropped.
They're pretending like the "Kraken" wasn't released.
The Kraken WAS released. The bombshells WERE dropped.
Anyone pretending to be a pede that also claims there was "no evidence" is either lying or simply wasn't paying attention.
It's one thing to complain about the COURTS refusing to HEAR the evidence. It's a different thing entirely to try to pretend that bombshell evidence wasn't released.
technically, it wasn't the top post. If you "minus sign" the first post by the handshake account "Garretist" you will find the rest of the thread very on-topic. That ONE sub-thread is the derail.
Just deport Garretist and indicate it was a technique 3 post.
Those may be good times to point out that the actual Trump campaign lawsuits are still ongoing and no lawyer will publically dump their evidence during a trial.
Well they're the closest thing to "leaders" this "movement" (if you can call wanting election transparency a movement) has. Would make sense to turn opinion against them.
I think there's also an element of "assuming the sale" in the way described by Scott Adams. The real sale is "there was no evidence presented" but then you go BEYOND that and assume that as a premise and make another claim on top. "Rudy sucks because there was no evidence! He let us down!"
Yep I agree with that. Even after seeing the evidence I've felt those feelings when reading comments like that. Always have to reassure myself that what I saw was REAL and ILLEGAL.
You’re right. I’ve noticed this too. You’ve summarized it very astutely. Pay no attention to the poster arguing with you — I’m pretty sure that’s a shill/fed, and s/he must be very nervous about their playbook being exposed.
Some of the stuff mentioned is good old debate tactics 101, so there is good reason to use it when discussing new ideas or arguing a different viewpoint.
I’m referring to the general persuasiveness line items. Not the purposefully deceptive ones.
It can be hard to tell the difference though sometimes. Which is why we see a preponderance of accusations flying around here.
Hint: not everyone who disagrees with you is an undercover agent.
Bonus hint: being likeminded is different than being same minded.
I see this in play all the time, all over the internet... including here.
One shill that I've been noticing a LOT is some variation of this:
"Fuck Rudy Giuliani! He lead us on with all of those fake promises of evidence that never surfaced!"
"Fuck Sidney Powell. We waited for months and she never delivered the kraken!"
"Fuck Bannon! He sat there every day telling us he had the receipts, but then he never delivered them!"
It's a really weird sort of shill that's kind of hard to wrap your head around. I think it's consensus cracking? But it also seems to have a built in presupposition that there was "no substantial evidence of voter fraud".
Has anyone else noticed this? It's just so odd and sticks out like a sore thumb when you see pedes claiming that Rudy, Sidney, Bannon, etc. never delivered any evidence.
I don't know what to make of it.
Edit:
Here are two direct quotes I've read from comments that somehow have 50+ upvotes:
"Screw Pardons. Am still waiting on Rudy to drop his mega-evidence."
"Sidney "Bombshells" Powell says we're going to be shocked when the truth comes out (over the next few weeks)"....that was 2 months ago."
I don't think so, dude.
You're missing the point. They're pretending that there WASNT "bombshell" evidence dropped.
They're pretending like the "Kraken" wasn't released.
The Kraken WAS released. The bombshells WERE dropped.
Anyone pretending to be a pede that also claims there was "no evidence" is either lying or simply wasn't paying attention.
It's one thing to complain about the COURTS refusing to HEAR the evidence. It's a different thing entirely to try to pretend that bombshell evidence wasn't released.
Which part exactly was the kraken?
technically, it wasn't the top post. If you "minus sign" the first post by the handshake account "Garretist" you will find the rest of the thread very on-topic. That ONE sub-thread is the derail.
Just deport Garretist and indicate it was a technique 3 post.
...but then why did you participate in the “debate about religion” (with a massively downvoted blackpill comment that nobody liked)?
Those may be good times to point out that the actual Trump campaign lawsuits are still ongoing and no lawyer will publically dump their evidence during a trial.
Also there was a shit ton of clear and definitive evidence dropped. To claim otherwise would be nonsense.
I hear you. Then again i knew Q was a psyop about a week into it's postings. Probably coming from the IC in some mannee
I don't really see how Q is related to any of that stuff.
Rudy, Sidney, Bannon, Raheem, etc. etc. - TONS of people dropped TONS of concrete and definitive evidence.
The courts and media simply ignored it.
Well they're the closest thing to "leaders" this "movement" (if you can call wanting election transparency a movement) has. Would make sense to turn opinion against them.
That makes a lot of sense.
I think there's also an element of "assuming the sale" in the way described by Scott Adams. The real sale is "there was no evidence presented" but then you go BEYOND that and assume that as a premise and make another claim on top. "Rudy sucks because there was no evidence! He let us down!"
Yep I agree with that. Even after seeing the evidence I've felt those feelings when reading comments like that. Always have to reassure myself that what I saw was REAL and ILLEGAL.
You’re right. I’ve noticed this too. You’ve summarized it very astutely. Pay no attention to the poster arguing with you — I’m pretty sure that’s a shill/fed, and s/he must be very nervous about their playbook being exposed.
So what should we do about it? If we can see it then certainly we can defend against it in some way.
Shill back, Trump Won
Some of the stuff mentioned is good old debate tactics 101, so there is good reason to use it when discussing new ideas or arguing a different viewpoint.
I’m referring to the general persuasiveness line items. Not the purposefully deceptive ones.
It can be hard to tell the difference though sometimes. Which is why we see a preponderance of accusations flying around here.
Hint: not everyone who disagrees with you is an undercover agent.
Bonus hint: being likeminded is different than being same minded.