The 'censorship' discussion

[ulli]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
My view: another dismissive post (flawed and disruptive?) that inaccurately generalizes the Q-anon research thread, process, and participants - conflating q-anon researchers with a host of non-thinker ills.

Yes, in talking about Q-anon I am generalizing. The people who follow Q-anon are all individuals, with different critical thinking skills, and different social skills, and abilities to be kind and thoughtful. However, these individuals also function as a group. And you, Q-anon followers, are the first people to talk about yourselves as a group. So you, Q-anon followers, are generalizing. You say that your group has a voice that needs to be heard. You say you have rights and entitlements.

So if Q-anon followers have rights and entitlements as a group, you also have responsibilities as a group. If you talk about the positive contributions you make as a group, the rest of us can also talk about the negative behaviors that are coming out of this group.

There are plenty of other groups in the world (church groups, civic groups, etc.) that encourage member to treat others outside their group well, which brings a better image to their group. In every type of group that has a mission, there is always the possibility that it can breed arrogance with thoughts like “Only we are God’s chosen people”, “only we know the truth that is yet to come.”. People in groups need to encourage others not to take up the bad behaviors that these thoughts can engender.

So, if you can generalize to talk about the positive aspects of the group, why shouldn’t I generalize about the negative aspects? If you, as a group, need rights and recognition, then why shouldn’t you, as a group, have responsibilities? Why is it right for you to make positive characterizations of the group, but wrong for me to make negative ones?

Yep, nothing more irritating than a group of people marching in the same direction and singing the same song. It can bring out the worst in me.
But the thing to look out for, before dismissing the Q thingy outright, is where such negative attitude stems from.
Could be a need for balancing- thus a need to neutralize, also could be copy cat syndrome, to repeat opinions of one’s peers, but also could be to feed an ingrained self- image of being “The Great Debunker”.

In either which case the future will show who is the temporary winner. And nobody knows the future for sure, it is being constructed by a collective consciousness, plus a hidden hand that no one will ever see or know.
I say temporary winner, because whole civilizations have come and gone and needed renewals.

[Matthew]

Posted by edina (here)
...

This applies in all directions.

And if what you say here is true, I'm not sure it is. Reasonably, two wrongs don't make a right.

Paula's post speaks well to people taking responsibility for how they express themselves, regardless of any "group" they may be perceived to be in.

I'm not holding the entire group of people who have expressed their concerns and issues responsible for the very hateful comments shared earlier in this thread, and now thankfully removed.
That would be unfair in my mind. And a different form of stereotyping.

And that behavior is covered very well in the forum's existing guidelines, which everyone is asked to read, and indicate that they've read as a part of the membership application process.

The group is not responsible for that person's choice of expression.

That would undermine "independent" thinking, wouldn't it?

Would a call to peer pressure within a group, which happens naturally as it's human nature, be also a call to adhere to "group think"?

The Q movement takes group think to a whole new level

WWG1WGA
Trust the plan
I could list more

The Q movement is particularly top-down, blind faith and group think. There's great strength in this, and that's probably why the Q movement is so effective

***UPDATE***
>>This applies in all directions.
WWG1WGA characterises the Q movement, Q is more 'band together' and groupy than anything else outside religion that I can think of

[edina]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)

Posted by edina (here)
...

This applies in all directions.

And if what you say here is true, I'm not sure it is. Reasonably, two wrongs don't make a right.

Paula's post speaks well to people taking responsibility for how they express themselves, regardless of any "group" they may be perceived to be in.

I'm not holding the entire group of people who have expressed their concerns and issues responsible for the very hateful comments shared earlier in this thread, and now thankfully removed.
That would be unfair in my mind. And a different form of stereotyping.

And that behavior is covered very well in the forum's existing guidelines, which everyone is asked to read, and indicate that they've read as a part of the membership application process.

The group is not responsible for that person's choice of expression.

That would undermine "independent" thinking, wouldn't it?

Would a call to peer pressure within a group, which happens naturally as it's human nature, be also a call to adhere to "group think"?

The Q movement takes group think to a whole new level

WWG1WGA
Trust the plan
I could list more

The Q movement is particularly top-down, blind faith and group think. There's great strength in this, and that's probably why the Q movement is so effective

***UPDATE***
>>This applies in all directions.
WWG1WGA characterises the Q movement, Q is more 'band together' and groupy than anything else outside religion that I can think of

Thank you YoYoYo, once again, we come to the edge of another place where there is disagreement in what these phrases mean. I interpret them in context of the whole, rather than in isolation.

This is probably not the thread for that conversation.

I hope you don't mind if I don't engage in that debate.
I get to choose where I spend my time, energy, focus and attention.
I am happier contributing in a thread where people are sharing information in a collaborative way.

And as I expressed somewhere else, I don't feel a need to try to talk people into or out of their opinions.
I am willing to have a conversation with other people willing to see things from various view points.
I am not willing to debate, if opinions are right or wrong. Those conversations often become contentious and divisive.

I wonder if the conflict happening in "polarized" topics comes from the difference in the type of conversations people are trying to have?

For example, there's a difference between debate and dialogue.

If one person is trying to debate and another is trying to dialogue, that will in and of itself cause conflict.
This is because they are essentially not having the same conversation.

[Matthew]

Ok yes, this my own single opinion. I speak for no one but myself: what I wrote above touches on why people perceive Q as a cult, and perhaps why Q ends up shunned. All this talk of being censored, and shadow banning but I suggest the WWG1WGA and related mantras are closer to the root of those problems

[edina]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
Ok yes, this my own single opinion. I speak for no one but myself: what I wrote above touches on why people perceive Q as a cult, and perhaps why Q ends up shunned. All this talk of being censored, and shadow banning but I suggest the WWG1WGA and related mantras are closer to the root of those problems

I agree with you, I think the difference in how people are interpreting those memes contribute to break downs in communication and understanding.

[Matthew]

Could you take a look at it from my perspective

Q has a very strong brand, and all news in the Q world goes under the Q thread

Q sourced news does not get put in the 'other' Project Avalon threads, with a cross referenced back to the Q drop... it gets posted in the Q thread as if that's the only context the news needs to be filed under. It's all about Q, as I said the branding is very strong, and it's its own little world

There's the Trust the plan, and psiops are necessary stuff, see that from my perspective; it's been used in arguments on this forum for petes sake

Then finally #WWG1WGA. Stop and see how this looks. How can you say it's not a group think movement, even if you are not into the group think yourself?

I apologise for being Coarse but its jumping out, screaming at me: how is the Q movement not hugely group think?

[justntime2learn]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
Ok yes, this my own single opinion. I speak for no one but myself: what I wrote above touches on why people perceive Q as a cult, and perhaps why Q ends up shunned. All this talk of being censored, and shadow banning but I suggest the WWG1WGA and related mantras are closer to the root of those problems

I agree with you, I think the difference in how people are interpreting those memes contribute to break downs in communication and understanding.

Perception is ones reality.

[Matthew]

Posted by justntime2learn (here)

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
Ok yes, this my own single opinion. I speak for no one but myself: what I wrote above touches on why people perceive Q as a cult, and perhaps why Q ends up shunned. All this talk of being censored, and shadow banning but I suggest the WWG1WGA and related mantras are closer to the root of those problems

I agree with you, I think the difference in how people are interpreting those memes contribute to break downs in communication and understanding.

Perception is ones reality.

Let me randomly clarify something that might seem unrelated: long story short, I like the Q movement. Q has inspired people to band together and fight for good, to an epic level, and the jolt Q created is awesome. See, the 'larp' side we completely disagree! Herve is facepalming right now.

We create reality with our perception, and 'reality' can't get in our way... the end result, sometimes our perceived reality wins through. We make the world with our thoughts.

I'm not even saying everyone here suffers from what I am accusing the Q movement of. But I'm glad to share my thoughts above, because that is what I believe about the movement, as much as I actually really like it

[Jayke]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
Could you take a look at it from my perspective

Q has a very strong brand, and all news in the Q world goes under the Q thread

Q sourced news does not get put in the 'other' Project Avalon threads, with a cross referenced back to the Q drop... it gets posted in the Q thread as if that's the only context the news needs to be filed under. It's all about Q, as I said the branding is very strong, and it's its own little world

There's the Trust the plan, and psiops are necessary stuff, see that from my perspective; it's been used in arguments on this forum for petes sake

Then finally #WWG1WGA. Stop and see how this looks. How can you say it's not a group think movement, even if you are not into the group think yourself?

I apologise for being Coarse but its jumping out, screaming at me: how is the Q movement not hugely group think?

Are you genuinely looking for a sincere answer to that question? I’ll share my perspective on it.

There are elements of groupthink in any movement, especially where groups of people unite around a common cause or a set of values. There are at least 2 key principles found in the Q movement though that are anathema to the organisational psychology of Groupthink as people refer to it as a type of cult:

Chaos and Meritocracy.

Chaos is utilised as an organisational principle in the movement because it requires Meritocracy for people to sort through the mess and confusion of the Q drops!

Chaos (directionalised ambiguity) is anathema to groupthink because when you scatter people to go digging and hunting for answers to your clues, you really have no way of controlling the randomness of what information gets brought back to be exposed. It’s an incredibly risky game for a group that has secrets to hide because it opens a can of worms that you ultimately have no control over.

Also Meritocracy because it’s not ultimately Q themselves that shapes the narrative. The narrative in the Q community gets pieced together by the facts and evidence that the researchers unearth. Q sets a theme, but the narrative is ultimately written by the anons. The better the evidence, the more likely it becomes part of the overall picture that gets painted by the facts.

Have a read of Neon Revolts recent article to get a gist of how the engine room of the movement operates on the chan boards (long article warning)...

https://www.neonrevolt.com/2019/07/1...ng-neonrevolt/

Groupthink is a much too vague a term to describe the movement. A discerning mind would recognise that it operates more like an outsourced intelligence agency than a cult. Whoever Q is has empowered a global army of digital researchers to expose and unearth whoever Q’s opponents or enemies are.

Directionalised ambiguity is a technique used by hypnotherapists to stimulate what they call a transderivational search, it’s a resource building manoeuvre that ultimately generates insight. Insight and resource building is the driver of change in all therapy sessions. Groupthink is the opposite, groupthink tries to suppress and shut off the transderivational search process (cults don’t want people reflecting on or contemplating the validity of core ideas that bind the group into a hermetic circle of the cult), hence you see all the censorship across the social media platforms hiding dissenting views.

The technique Q primarily uses is a tool of psychological operations to affect change. So psy-op is the only correct label that truly fits. The questions people should be asking are what kind of psy-op? What’s the ultimate goal? What changes are to be brought about? What themes are not being exposed or brought to light that really should be? Who does the movement benefit?

I think there’s still a ton of dialogue and analysis to be had around those issues.

[Matthew]

I didn't mean to further call the movement a cult, but glad to clarify .. just rhubarb perceived as a cult rhubarb... Always enjoy your posts Jayke (this one is my favourite), and I agree about the dialogue and analysis yet to be had

***UPDATE***
In answer to your question, no I meant it as rhetorical, but appreciate your response!

[Frank V]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
Chris

[Matthew]

When you find the switch let me know, till then, however tiresome, and repetitive, and challenging ...for everyone, dialogue is the best way forward.

[Frank V]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
When you find the switch let me know, till then, however tiresome, and repetitive, and challenging ...for everyone, dialogue is the best way forward.

There are other threads for that... in the members-only section. This thread here is about what constitutes censorship.

[Matthew]

Please spare me, I made some points to Q followers about my opinion of why they are perceived as group thinking


---- edit

this is how I argue I was on topic:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1304604

[waves]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by waves (here)
There's a big, very telling reason only the pro-Q people are deliriously angry at being moved out of non-membership view (which is not censorship), and the just as passionate disbelievers aren't in the least upset at their discussion being moved out of public view and don't feel 'censored'.

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but from your various comments in this thread, you got what you wanted, the first Q thread removed from view.
And I figured that's why you're not complaining.

The other two threads were only removed from view when someone pointed out the inconsistency.

You'll also note that the people raising questions are advocating all 3 threads be returned to public view.
So, if you don't feel censored, we feel you were censored, too.

Or rather, shadow-banned. It's a more accurate description of the action.

Much misunderstanding to correct.

1. Do you even know the just as passionate and moved 'Q REVEALED....' thread is mine? I wasn't asked before or told after and don't feel censored.

2. If you carefully read my very repeatedly consistent comments about this issue, you'll find I tried very, very, very, very, very hard to be clear that my issues are:

a. the hypocrisy of Q Believer forum members loudly demanding other forum members be CENSORED from their thread for months, then feel they have a right to complain about what they feel is censorship!

b. An Avalon mod actually GATEKEEPING a thread from healthy discussion for the first time.

BUT MORE THAN EVERYTHING....
c. That every Q Believer forum member has flatly refused to make any effort whatsoever to understand what has fully convinced a majority of their co-forum members why Q is a psyop and cult.

3. "you got what you wanted". Where did I ever state I wanted the Q thread removed from....PUBLIC... view?? I did not.

WHAT I STATED I WANTED - I want stronger boundaries at Avalon in terms of maturity and open mindedness membership requirements. I wanted forum members who show they are totally unwilling to understand other forum members and discuss respectfully with mutual understanding to be considered not fit for Avalon, both for the unhealthy Q behavior, but also because minds and egos willing to ignore inconvenient facts and still angrily push their flawed reasoning anyway bring that immaturity to other threads too - bringing otherwise healthy discussions to a screeching halt for so much 'selectively blind' fact ignoring tantrum throwing / interrupting.

I have no disagreement with the Q phenomenon as an absolutely valid Avalon topic, but only one healthy thread should be needed - acknowledging the psyop, and discussing the content that it's putting into public view and the many reverberations positive and negative.

The unhealthy part is tolerating the cultish behavior of kneeling at Trumps and Q's feet as benevolent saviors, 'trusting the plan', taking extreme morons like Preying Medic and Pamphlet seriously, and more than anything, not learning from past cult history - or respected members trying to tell them something before or after investing oneself 100% and slamming one's mind's door.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
When you find the switch let me know, till then, however tiresome, and repetitive, and challenging ...for everyone, dialogue is the best way forward.

Well, it allows a direction to aim pent energies that can be destructive in other ways, at least. I'm pretty sure this is the primary positive result of this thread, and not wrongly. But don't expect to solve the issue here in any way that would satisfy everyone, pretty sure that won't happen. But the thread does provide an outlet for those energies, and an opportunity at the same time for others to diffuse those energies - I see this here as well. So its doing its job in that regard.

Edit to add: I'm just saying I think the original topic conversation is unlikely to move forward in any meaningful way, at the same time I now see a potential therapeutic value in continuing the discussion as long as it is done respectfully.

[Frank V]

Posted by YoYoYo (here)
Please spare me, I made some points to Q followers about my opinion of why they are perceived as group thinking

I can see that, and I agree with your assessment, although my own description of the phenomenon would be somewhat less mild than yours. But as you may have noticed, the Q debate keeps on crawling out of that members-only section and into this thread all the time. And there's a reason for that too.

"A fanatic is someone who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject."

(Winston Churchill)

This thread here was not intended to be about the QAnonsense™[*] debate. This thread was intended to be about what constitutes censorship.

Try posting something anti-Q on the main Q thread and see how long it takes before your post gets reported to the mods for being off-topic.

And I'm not kidding, because that's exactly what happened to me with my very first post there, in which I was trying to explain to them how stupid their censorship claim was. They were trying to censor me, and they were so far gone that they couldn't even see that.

Luckily enough, the mods agreed that my post was not off-topic, and that I, not them, was the one under attack ─ I was called a hypocrite and a liar, I was accused of being complicit in forging a photo of Bill that had not been forged, and I immediately got three posters on my neck. Where I come from, we call that "mobbing", and it's a quite common occurrence among cult followers. And I know all about cults and cult followers, because we've had at least two of those at The One Truth since I've been a staff member there.

Therefore, if the QAnonsense™ cult wants to claim that particular thread as their solemn territory, then anything pertaining to the QAnonsense™ debate has no place on this thread here, because that's not what Bill started this thread for.


_____

• I am generally not a harsh person, but if anyone feels offended by that term, then so be it. I'm not taking back a single word. The Q followers are supposedly against censorship and all for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I am therefore exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
  
  Freedom has to work in all directions, or else it is tyranny.

___________________________________________________

Posted by waves (here)
2. If you carefully read my very repeatedly consistent comments about this issue, you'll find I tried very, very, very, very, very hard to be clear that my issues are:

a. the hypocrisy of Q Believer forum members loudly demanding other forum members be CENSORED from their thread for months, then feel they have a right to complain about what they feel is censorship!

b. An Avalon mod actually GATEKEEPING a thread from healthy discussion for the first time.

[edina]

Posted by waves (here)

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by waves (here)
There's a big, very telling reason only the pro-Q people are deliriously angry at being moved out of non-membership view (which is not censorship), and the just as passionate disbelievers aren't in the least upset at their discussion being moved out of public view and don't feel 'censored'.

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but from your various comments in this thread, you got what you wanted, the first Q thread removed from view.
And I figured that's why you're not complaining.

The other two threads were only removed from view when someone pointed out the inconsistency.

You'll also note that the people raising questions are advocating all 3 threads be returned to public view.
So, if you don't feel censored, we feel you were censored, too.

Or rather, shadow-banned. It's a more accurate description of the action.

Much misunderstanding to correct.

1. Do you even know the just as passionate and moved 'Q REVEALED....' thread is mine? I wasn't asked before or told after and don't feel censored.

2. If you carefully read my very repeatedly consistent comments about this issue, you'll find I tried very, very, very, very, very hard to be clear that my issues are:

a. the hypocrisy of Q Believer forum members loudly demanding other forum members be CENSORED from their thread for months, then feel they have a right to complain about what they feel is censorship!

b. An Avalon mod actually GATEKEEPING a thread from healthy discussion for the first time.

BUT MORE THAN EVERYTHING....
c. That every Q Believer forum member has flatly refused to make any effort whatsoever to understand what has fully convinced a majority of their co-forum members why Q is a psyop and cult.

3. "you got what you wanted". Where did I ever state I wanted the Q thread removed from....PUBLIC... view?? I did not.

WHAT I STATED I WANTED - I want stronger boundaries at Avalon in terms of maturity and open mindedness membership requirements. I wanted forum members who show they are totally unwilling to understand other forum members and discuss respectfully with mutual understanding to be considered not fit for Avalon, both for the unhealthy Q behavior, but also because minds and egos willing to ignore inconvenient facts and still angrily push their flawed reasoning anyway bring that immaturity to other threads too - bringing otherwise healthy discussions to a screeching halt for so much 'selectively blind' fact ignoring tantrum throwing / interrupting.

I have no disagreement with the Q phenomenon as an absolutely valid Avalon topic, but only one healthy thread should be needed - acknowledging the psyop, and discussing the content that it's putting into public view and the many reverberations positive and negative.

The unhealthy part is tolerating the cultish behavior of kneeling at Trumps and Q's feet as benevolent saviors, 'trusting the plan', taking extreme morons like Preying Medic and Pamphlet seriously, and more than anything, not learning from past cult history - or respected members trying to tell them something before or after investing oneself 100% and slamming one's mind's door.

People have repeatedly made it clear that THIS thread is not about Q.

My comment was based on the comments you've made in THIS thread.

That said, I read your comments about "boundaries". As I read it, I thought it was uncanny that we were thinking along similar lines and wondered to myself how that could be addressed.

However, it became clear to me that this sort of conversation is not the topic of this thread.

I ought to let people know that I DO understand people's concerns. I have heard them.

I have actually responded to members who expressed those concerns in respectful ways within the Q thread.

I've not participated in the other threads.

waves, remember that it was your words that "shocked" me earlier in this thread.

If that is how you were communicating your concerns in your thread, then I know it's not a sort of conversation I want to have.

I have limited time, and especially had limited time last year as I was preparing for the Appalachian Trail Thru-hike.
Because of this I have kept my focus primarily in the Q thread because that was the area I was interested in.

Right now, today, I'm also bringing myself up to speed on the Epstein thread.

I DO get to do that. Choose where I place my focus.

[RunningDeer]

FYI: for new comers - Q Booth - HodgePodge thread is "Q" Booth for Off Topic Posts from Other Threads

[Constance]

Hello everyone

Could I please ask kindly that we get back to the topic of discussion? It would be really helpful to all of us if we could do so.

Edited to add: I don't want to break up any meaningful discussions here, I just want to make sure that everyone can follow along...





P.S thank you so much RunningDear for the thread link