5 ms·

In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole

In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole to illustrate a point.

arcticbull 6y ago
I'm now thoroughly lost. You've equated NPR, a non-profit news organization that's pretty widely regarded as boring, with a wild conspiracy theory of sex trafficking pizza shops. You're welcome to try again but without the hyperbole this time?
- guscost 6y ago
  Here’s one huge difference between the two: NPR does not generally make up stories from whole cloth, without at least a real person on the record vouching for them. Their flaws are pretty much all in what stories and details they choose to report, and who they choose to interview.
stonogo 6y ago
There are people in my town running for office who absolutely do believe that Q is the only trustworthy source of information, have declared so in public, and receive a nontrivial amount of support from folks who agree. You may have tried to use hyperbole to illustrate a point, but you wound up looking like you're trying to either discredit a news organization you don't like or legitimize a bullshit artist by placing the two on equal terms. It came across as disingenuous at best and you don't seem to be willing to recognize that divergence from your stated intentions. Why is that?
- guscost 6y ago
  NPR is basically a state propaganda outfit that pretends to be a “neutral” and objective source, although its organization and methods are very different from those of the Q entity. Both sources have many die-hard followers who utterly fail to question their output, or understand their conflicts of interest. It is a simple and consistent argument, even if you don’t want to believe it, and even if you are right to dislike the spice.

5 ms·

In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole

by guscost 6y ago

In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole to illustrate a point.

arcticbull 6y ago
I'm now thoroughly lost. You've equated NPR, a non-profit news organization that's pretty widely regarded as boring, with a wild conspiracy theory of sex trafficking pizza shops. You're welcome to try again but without the hyperbole this time?
- guscost 6y ago
  Here’s one huge difference between the two: NPR does not generally make up stories from whole cloth, without at least a real person on the record vouching for them. Their flaws are pretty much all in what stories and details they choose to report, and who they choose to interview.
stonogo 6y ago
There are people in my town running for office who absolutely do believe that Q is the only trustworthy source of information, have declared so in public, and receive a nontrivial amount of support from folks who agree. You may have tried to use hyperbole to illustrate a point, but you wound up looking like you're trying to either discredit a news organization you don't like or legitimize a bullshit artist by placing the two on equal terms. It came across as disingenuous at best and you don't seem to be willing to recognize that divergence from your stated intentions. Why is that?
- guscost 6y ago
  NPR is basically a state propaganda outfit that pretends to be a “neutral” and objective source, although its organization and methods are very different from those of the Q entity. Both sources have many die-hard followers who utterly fail to question their output, or understand their conflicts of interest. It is a simple and consistent argument, even if you don’t want to believe it, and even if you are right to dislike the spice.