>>25407025>>25407111>25407344 no (you) for youAnyone not outright stating they 'disbelieve the statements are made by Visage himself,' or something to that effect, are viewerschizos.
>Why?They are trying to subtly shift people away from the most parsimonious explanation (and the most popular sentiment from neutral viewers) into the direction of what they want you to believe, (that Visage did write those posts).
Weaponized uncertainty. This action doesn't need to convert everyone who wouldn't believe it's him sans the attempt, just a few to create more confusion.
>25407025Observe.
Read these statements and see if you can find the logical contradiction yourself.
>if it really wasn't him it would be better for him to clarify that it wasn't>aspiring vtubers who want to grow being in a server with someone who openly uses language like thatSomebody didn't do something 'openly' if they have to (due to doubt) clarify it was them that did it.
Viewerschizos, you are on thin ice, you have been warned.
t. Council of Schizos
