Duncan Idaho said:

---

oragator said:

---

True story - Years ago I posted in F16 a bit. Liked the idea of seeing the POV from a different part of the country. Some dude (can't even remember who) was following me around, comparing my posts, at one point he accused me of being a sock (I didn't even know what that was at that point). Apparently he thought I was some known crazy person, a girl maybe if I remember right? And he got like 10 likes on that post, as if he had made some massive investigative discovery. And when I pointed out that I had posted here for years and wasn't a sock, instead of apologizing he blamed me for being hypocritical and inconsistent and making it look like that's what I was (for saying I voted for someone I didn't agree with 100 percent because they were the least worst choice) in my posts and got a whole bunch more likes. Rather than explain why all of that was crazy to a group that was out for blood, that was the end of my foray.
To her credit, Aggiehawg defended me a bit, but nothing from anyone else, especially the mods, so that was it. And it wasn't even a question of thin skin, and I don't care about that... it was just a ludicrous conversation, and seems to be the norm. Wasted energy.
/coolstorybro

---

There is a cautionary tale.

Seems to have been a fairly competent attorney in a previous life but damned if she didn't fall hook line and sinker for an MFBarnes sock and all the "kraken" BS

---

Sadly, agree. Used to have lots of good legal conversations with Hawg about current legal events. But over the last year or so she got deep into some corners of the internet she didn't really understand, and ended up in a rabbit hole. To make it relevent, she followed/cited Ron Watkins as an authority on a number of issues following the election, particularly election technology. Something I would not have expected from Hawg even a year or two ago.

It's sad and unfortunate that the Q thread was allowed to live as long as it did on F16. People say they didn't follow it, or it was only a handful of active posters, and the rest didn't believe. But the reality is the Q thread tainted the board as a whole. The true Q believers being around on a daily basis and posting Q adjacent stuff on non-Q threads blurred the line between reality and Q world, and even people who don't think they were Q followers ended up exposed to enough Q related fake news that it became part of their reality. Gradually being desensitized to the BS until it sounded normal.

Quote:

---

The true Q believers being around on a daily basis and posting Q adjacent stuff on non-Q threads blurred the line between reality and Q world, and even people who don't think they were Q followers ended up exposed to enough Q related fake news that it became part of their reality. Gradually being desensitized to the BS until it sounded normal.

---

This is something I see with older people on facebook all the time. If you asked them if they are Q followers, they'd give an answer ranging from "WTF is Q" to a straight up "no way." And they'd be right - they don't seek out Q content or drops or whatever, and wouldn't even know where to look for it.

But then if you ask them "do you believe ________" and fill in the blank with a specific Q conspiracy, they will almost always say yes, either because they read it on some other site or on a friend's facebook page, or because it just sounds right to them. So functionally, they end up in this Q-adjacent territory where they believe the nonsense without even knowing where it came from.

I've had a star on and off for a few years now, I kept it now because when i see Q types who bought into the weirdest stuff...I can't take their opinions seriously any more especially when you try ignoring/blocking and then seeing their posts on other boards and realizing the guano is just as deep there? You realize you don't miss it. Blocking makes texags a better place. I am sure my nonsense is blocked by people too and I'm fine with that.

My first amendment rights to free speech (not even getting into section 230 whatnot) do not include on demand access to your eyes and ears and I am fine with that.

It is like the episode of that fox sitcom "the tucker carlson show" when he tried to claim that q wasn't a thing because he couldn't find their website.

third coast.. said:

---

I've never understood the fascination and coddling, tbh. You see it across the internet with female posters though, and sleith several female posters through the various boards on texags, the aforementioned being one.

---

Every time it happens I picture this:

Duncan Idaho said:

---

It is like the episode of that fox sitcom "the tucker carlson show" when he tried to claim that q wasn't a thing because he couldn't find their website.

---

Are his interns really that bad at using the internet or did they just not even look?

I like hawg. But lots of other posters who are attorneys have mentioned several times where she is wrong. Heck, there was a time where some folks thought she was Barnes.

But that's what happens when you come out on the R side...you're given carte blanche credibility..and white knighting to that end as well.

this is also the same guy who said that they weren't going to run anything about Hunter Biden because they felt sorry for him.


Go a couple of pages back and see why Tucker does what he does. Ratings = $$$

Charpie said:

---

this is also the same guy who said that they weren't going to run anything about Hunter Biden because they felt sorry for him.


Go a couple of pages back and see why Tucker does what he does. Ratings = $$$

---

Oh, I'm well aware of his schtick. The lawsuit where their defense was "You can't take anything he says as fact" sticks out in particular in my mind.

bluefire579 said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

It is like the episode of that fox sitcom "the tucker carlson show" when he tried to claim that q wasn't a thing because he couldn't find their website.

---

Are his interns really that bad at using the internet or did they just not even look?

---

Neither. They know their audience won't look and will happily believe whatever he says and the go buy some shredded memory foam stuffed in a sack

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

The true Q believers being around on a daily basis and posting Q adjacent stuff on non-Q threads blurred the line between reality and Q world, and even people who don't think they were Q followers ended up exposed to enough Q related fake news that it became part of their reality. Gradually being desensitized to the BS until it sounded normal.

---

This is something I see with older people on facebook all the time. If you asked them if they are Q followers, they'd give an answer ranging from "WTF is Q" to a straight up "no way." And they'd be right - they don't seek out Q content or drops or whatever, and wouldn't even know where to look for it.

But then if you ask them "do you believe ________" and fill in the blank with a specific Q conspiracy, they will almost always say yes, either because they read it on some other site or on a friend's facebook page, or because it just sounds right to them. So functionally, they end up in this Q-adjacent territory where they believe the nonsense without even knowing where it came from.

---

There are times when I talk to my dad or my brother and feel like I need an ovaltine decoder ring or a playbill to keep track of all of the characters or conspiracies they start spouting.

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

oragator said:

---

True story - Years ago I posted in F16 a bit. Liked the idea of seeing the POV from a different part of the country. Some dude (can't even remember who) was following me around, comparing my posts, at one point he accused me of being a sock (I didn't even know what that was at that point). Apparently he thought I was some known crazy person, a girl maybe if I remember right? And he got like 10 likes on that post, as if he had made some massive investigative discovery. And when I pointed out that I had posted here for years and wasn't a sock, instead of apologizing he blamed me for being hypocritical and inconsistent and making it look like that's what I was (for saying I voted for someone I didn't agree with 100 percent because they were the least worst choice) in my posts and got a whole bunch more likes. Rather than explain why all of that was crazy to a group that was out for blood, that was the end of my foray.
To her credit, Aggiehawg defended me a bit, but nothing from anyone else, especially the mods, so that was it. And it wasn't even a question of thin skin, and I don't care about that... it was just a ludicrous conversation, and seems to be the norm. Wasted energy.
/coolstorybro

---

There is a cautionary tale.

Seems to have been a fairly competent attorney in a previous life but damned if she didn't fall hook line and sinker for an MFBarnes sock and all the "kraken" BS

---

Sadly, agree. Used to have lots of good legal conversations with Hawg about current legal events. But over the last year or so she got deep into some corners of the internet she didn't really understand, and ended up in a rabbit hole. To make it relevent, she followed/cited Ron Watkins as an authority on a number of issues following the election, particularly election technology. Something I would not have expected from Hawg even a year or two ago.

It's sad and unfortunate that the Q thread was allowed to live as long as it did on F16. People say they didn't follow it, or it was only a handful of active posters, and the rest didn't believe. But the reality is the Q thread tainted the board as a whole. The true Q believers being around on a daily basis and posting Q adjacent stuff on non-Q threads blurred the line between reality and Q world, and even people who don't think they were Q followers ended up exposed to enough Q related fake news that it became part of their reality. Gradually being desensitized to the BS until it sounded normal.

---

True all the way around. Her and I (plus some other attorneys on the board) used to openly engage on legal discussions, but the last few years she really went down the rabbit hole. I think it began around Mueller and the Gen. Flynn case and she kept getting deeper into all sorts of nonsense. There were PLENTY of legitimate areas for criticism and debate on both of those but she bit on some really outlandish stuff. It really popped off during the election and, you're right, she was even citing Watkins as an "expert." The worst part was if anyone actually dared to disagree with the deeply flawed legal "analysis", how defensive she became when she didn't used to be that way.

You would have thought maybe she'd learn a lesson after falling for the latest barnes troll where he was posing as an ex-FBI agent, but no such luck.

third coast.. said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I like hawg. But lots of other posters who are attorneys have mentioned several times where she is wrong. Heck, there was a time where some folks thought she was Barnes.

But that's what happens when you come out on the R side...you're given carte blanche credibility..and white knighting to that end as well.

---

you can see this any time tanya posts a thought that even remotely leans R,there is a massive slobber fest all over her. It is absolutely wild. gotta be a lot of dopamine flowing when you know you can say something and get people praising you.

---

That's the impetus for probably 80% of posts made on F16.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

third coast.. said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I like hawg. But lots of other posters who are attorneys have mentioned several times where she is wrong. Heck, there was a time where some folks thought she was Barnes.

But that's what happens when you come out on the R side...you're given carte blanche credibility..and white knighting to that end as well.

---

you can see this any time tanya posts a thought that even remotely leans R,there is a massive slobber fest all over her. It is absolutely wild. gotta be a lot of dopamine flowing when you know you can say something and get people praising you.

---

That's the impetus for probably 80% of posts made on F16.

---

It seems like the crazy feedback ramped into overdrive when the stars were introduced.

I think that's the bigger problem than the hardcore Q people: the people who are essentially getting the Hill Country Fare version of Q. It's the exact same nonsense, just repackaged as a meme on their friend's facebook wall or a comment from someone they like and trust during a regular conversation. If they believe it either way, it doesn't really matter if they're a literal Q person or not.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

third coast.. said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I like hawg. But lots of other posters who are attorneys have mentioned several times where she is wrong. Heck, there was a time where some folks thought she was Barnes.

But that's what happens when you come out on the R side...you're given carte blanche credibility..and white knighting to that end as well.

---

you can see this any time tanya posts a thought that even remotely leans R,there is a massive slobber fest all over her. It is absolutely wild. gotta be a lot of dopamine flowing when you know you can say something and get people praising you.

---

That's the impetus for probably 80% of posts made on F16.

---

It seems like the crazy feedback ramped into overdrive when the stars were introduced.

---

Yeah, I didn't frequent it before stars were introduced. It'd be interesting to see how much more civil discourse as opposed to "all liberals want white genocide" type posts there was before.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

It seems like the crazy feedback ramped into overdrive when the stars were introduced.

---

i think that has a lot to do with it. additionally, i think part of it is also a natural reaction to the drastic lurch to the left that has occurred over the past 5-10 years as well.

if we had taken an equally drastic turn to the right, you'd hear the opposite side's equivalent. as a matter of fact, you can go read the opposite side's equivalent on a vast number of left-leaning boards right now.

Staff even confirmed that roscoe was a barnes sock.

But it was an impressive sock. Wasn't it retweeted by seditionist flynn?

I find it hilarious when 13 claims that 16 suppresses civil discourse. No forum on TexAgs does that more than 13.

On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.

I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.

This thread hasn't been that bad.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

third coast.. said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I like hawg. But lots of other posters who are attorneys have mentioned several times where she is wrong. Heck, there was a time where some folks thought she was Barnes.

But that's what happens when you come out on the R side...you're given carte blanche credibility..and white knighting to that end as well.

---

you can see this any time tanya posts a thought that even remotely leans R,there is a massive slobber fest all over her. It is absolutely wild. gotta be a lot of dopamine flowing when you know you can say something and get people praising you.

---

That's the impetus for probably 80% of posts made on F16.

---

It seems like the crazy feedback ramped into overdrive when the stars were introduced.

---

Along with inconsistent moderation of drive-by trolling. One post from a certain posters, even if posted in good faith (which I think sometimes is highly questionable), can really drive the echo-chambering effect. It's all very "look at me" and one inane or daft post can dissolve an interesting thread from being about the topic into being about the posters themselves.


eta: i dont mean to make this about moderation, but the responses to seemingly obvious trolling, drives so many stars and additional unnecessary posts that it totally clutters and distracts from any decent discourse. I wouldnt know how to moderate, maybe if one post with <2 stars generates 15 replies each with >25 stars, original post might a troll, and all subsequent posts should be deleted??

1. LOL for counting how many posts of yours get deleted. I mean, who cares?
2. Every board has its own culture. Depending on where you are posting, somethings are more sensitive than others. On the gb you can make a personal attack. On 16, that's a big no no. But you know this. It's been that way for years.

Calling the 13 folks snowflakes is just as bad as whining about posts getting deleted. I mean, isn't the whole meaning behind snowflake behavior being sensitive? The very nature about complaining is being sensitive to something. Whose being a snowflake?

aTmAg said:

---

Charpie said:

---

This thread hasn't been that bad.

---

I've had posts deleted on 13 in the last couple days for nothing. On 16, I've had a one man stand against ten other people and not have a single post deleted.

---

You play that victim card well but I have a feeling that you likely deserved your deleted posts.

aTmAg said:

---

I find it hilarious when 13 claims that 16 suppresses civil discourse. No forum on TexAgs does that more than 13.

---

You say this like you're coming on here trying to have civil discourse. Your past several posts on this very thread have been drive-by attacks, either on liberals or on the board itself. There's a reason people are either mostly ignoring what you're saying or being hostile back. You're contributing nothing to the conversation.

Not to mention, you make it seem like the posters on this thread had some sort of magic power to delete those posts. Your issue is with the moderator, and perhaps would be best suited taking it up with them

One of aTmAg's posts that he's complaining about having been deleted was yesterday, in the thread titled, "Greatest living movie star," in like the fourth or fifth post, in which he angry chimed in with something to the effect of, "Who cares?! They're all playing make believe!" That was his literally all he said, and everyone, including myself, completely ignored him. So, when he talks about "opinions that 13 snowflakes don't agree with," half time he's referring to batsh*t insane posts like that, in which he purposefully attempts to derail threads by what he misguidedly believes is speaking truth to power. When, in reality, he chooses - sadly - to define his existence by stoking conflict, thriving off arguments (with walls if need be), and pathetically attempting to troll a board devoted to a subject matter he has deep and deranged ideological problems with, wasting untold hours of his life doing so.