#QAnon: Slacktivism For Fascists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #QAnon: Slacktivism For Fascists

my bony fealty: Oct 1, 2008

zoux posted:

Brandon Straka is a maga grifter.

Until there's some actual data, I'm going to assume that, like most internet fringe werido cults, their actual numbers are a lot smaller than they seem. Also complicating this is that the qanon "movement" is full of non-true-believer grifters and trolls. (Q themselves, however many there have been, is/are troll(s)) Q anon is something to make fun of, not something to worry about.

the FBI seems to disagree!

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 12:45

pookel: Oct 27, 2011; Ultra Carp

It really depends on whether we're counting every boomer who saw a Q-branded "Trump is fighting the deep state!" meme on Facebook and figured this Q stuff must be legit. Like, a lot of people will say they believe in things they've barely paid attention to, as long as those things sounded important & confirmed their biases. Just like how people will share science articles based on the headlines without even bothering to read them.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:11

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

zoux posted:

Brandon Straka is a maga grifter.
Q anon is something to make fun of, not something to worry about.

Are we have to four or five terrorist attacks that have been committed by qanon adherents now? I've lost track.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:26

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Apparently since the number is zero.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:29

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

zoux posted:

Apparently since the number is zero.

https://twitter.com/_Lind_L_Tailor/status/1156345422325178368?s=19

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1025129268920107008?s=19

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:33

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Seriously

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:36

Telsa Cola: Aug 19, 2011; No... this is all wrong... this whole operation has just gone completely sidewaysface

zoux posted:

Seriously

Going to go with what you had before your edit and it might be a good idea for people to clarify what they mean by terrorist attack.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:38

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1156963220508282880?s=19

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:40

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

The grifters are true believers too.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:41

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Telsa Cola posted:

Going to go with what you had before your edit and it might be a good idea for people to clarify what they mean by terrorist attack.

Okay "terrorist attack" is probably a poor choice of words on my part, "violent incident" would be better.

The fact remains that the FBI is out there stating that qanon and pizzagate pose a domestic terrorism threat. I would argue that ignoring the threat posed by qanon at this point is normalcy bias.

Edit:

Mantis42 posted:

The grifters are true believers too.

And even if they don't start out that way, they inevitably end up that way. I call it the "L Ron Hubbard effect".

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:41

bird with big dick: Oct 21, 2015

I think I�ve heard the phrase that you can �gently caress the crazy out of *someone*� has anyone tried this with qanon people

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:46

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Prester Jane posted:

Okay "terrorist attack" is probably a poor choice of words on my part, "violent incident" would be better.

The fact remains that the FBI is out there stating that qanon and pizzagate pose a domestic terrorism threat. I would argue that ignoring the threat posed by qanon at this point is normalcy bias.

They also don't list white supremacist groups as domestic terror threats even though they actually do domestic terror. The reason the FBI naming Qanon as a dangerous extremist group is funny is that qanons believe the FBI/DOJ are on their side

Here's some other key quotes from the article you didn't read

quote:

Historian David Garrow, the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Martin Luther King Jr. who has worked extensively with FBI archives, raised doubts to Yahoo News about the memo. He says the FBI�s default assumption is that violence is motivated by ideological beliefs rather than mental illness. �The guy who shot up the pizza place in D.C.: Do we think of him as a right-wing activist, or insane?� Garrow asked.

Garrow was similarly critical of the FBI�s use of the term �black identity extremists� and related attempts to ascribe incidents like the 2016 shooting of six police officers in Baton Rouge, La., to black radicalism. He said the shooter, Gavin Long, had a history of mental health problems. �The bureau�s presumption � the mindset � is to see ideological motives where most of the rest of us see individual nuttiness,� he said.

....

Yet the proliferation of the extremist categories concerns Michael German, a former FBI agent and now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice�s Liberty & National Security program. �It�s part of the radicalization theory the FBI has promoted despite empirical studies that show it�s bogus,� he said.

German says this new category is a continuing part of FBI overreach. �They like the radicalization theory because it justifies mass surveillance,� he said. �If we know everyone who will do harm is coming from this particular community, mass surveillance is important. We keep broadening the number of communities we include in extremist categories.�

For Garrow, the historian, the FBI�s expansive definition has its roots in bureau paranoia that dates back decades. �I think it�s their starting point,� he said. �This goes all the way back to the Hoover era without question. They see ideology as a central motivating factor in human life, and they don�t see mental health issues as a major factor.�

Yet trying to label a specific belief system as prone to violence is problematic, he said.

�I don�t think most of us would do a good job in predicting what sort of wacky information could lead someone to violence, or not lead anyone to violence,� Garrow said. �Pizzagate would be a great example of that.�

zoux fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:47

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

zoux posted:

They also don't list white supremacist groups as domestic terror threats even though they actually do domestic terror. The reason the FBI naming Qanon as a dangerous extremist group is funny is that qanons believe the FBI/DOJ are on their side

Here's some other key quotes from the article you didn't read

Are you trying to make the case that it's mentally ill people who commit violent attacks and not people motivated by ideology? Just curious what road you want to take this down.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:58

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

I'm quoting the article you posted

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:00

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

zoux posted:

I'm quoting the article you posted

Yes, you're quoting a specifically selected portion of that article that is making the case that ideologies aren't the problem- mentally ill people are.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:02

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Ok I see where this is going, I'm done.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:03

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

zoux posted:

Ok I see where this is going, I'm done.

I mean your whole case here has been that the qanon ideology is harmless, and then you selected specific quotes that made the case that the FBI focuses too much on ideologies (as the source of violence) and not enough on mental illness.

If I'm misreading this then please clarify what your intended point was.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:08

Fiend: Dec 2, 2001

Thank you Preston Jane - this whole Qanon Qult has got society all bugaboo. If anything, the country needs to have a conversation on mental health in America.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:09

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Prester Jane posted:

I mean your whole case here has been that the qanon ideology is harmless, and then you selected specific quotes that made the case that the FBI focuses too much on ideologies (as the source of violence) and not enough on mental illness.

If I'm misreading this then please clarify what your intended point was.

Nah, I'm going to go back to posting funny Q things.

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1157340280410050560

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:12

pop fly to McGillicutty: Feb 2, 2004; A peckish little mouse!

zoux posted:

Ok I see where this is going, I'm done.

Glad I quoted you.

You could try to articulate your point. I don't get what you're saying either.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:12

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

pop fly to McGillicutty posted:

Glad I quoted you.

You could try to articulate your point. I don't get what you're saying either.

What happened was he was in such a rush to find a reason to disagree with me that he didn't really think through the implications of the argument he was making. He's also saying that rather than either backtrack or defend the position he staked out- he'd rather go back to posting distracting sillyness.

In other words, normalcy bias.

Wikipedia posted:

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a belief people hold when considering the possibility of a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

....

Normalcy bias, David McRaney has written, "is often factored into fatality predictions in everything from ship sinkings to stadium evacuations." Disaster movies, he adds, "get it all wrong. When you and others are warned of danger, you don’t evacuate immediately while screaming and flailing your arms." McRaney notes that in the book Big Weather, tornado chaser Mark Svenvold discusses "how contagious normalcy bias can be. He recalled how people often tried to convince him to chill out while fleeing from impending doom. Even when tornado warnings were issued, people assumed it was someone else's problem.

Stake-holding peers, he said, would try to shame him into denial so they could remain calm. They didn't want him deflating their attempts at feeling normal".[7]

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:23

tpink: Feb 18, 2013; Melman

zoux posted:

Brandon Straka is a maga grifter.

Until there's some actual data, I'm going to assume that, like most internet fringe werido cults, their actual numbers are a lot smaller than they seem. Also complicating this is that the qanon "movement" is full of non-true-believer grifters and trolls. (Q themselves, however many there have been, is/are troll(s)) Q anon is something to make fun of, not something to worry about.

Thanks for that link. Never heard of the guy, but yup, grift on grift on grift.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:35

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Conspiracy theorists are an extremely gullible bunch, which is why Alex Jones and Cernovich et al are able to make so much from snake oil sales.

zoux fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:45

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Prester Jane posted:

https://twitter.com/_Lind_L_Tailor/status/1156345422325178368?s=19

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1025129268920107008?s=19

Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that this man has chosen Laura loving Loomer to be his lawyer surrogate, lol.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 23:45

bowser: Apr 7, 2007

This isn't really related but I was reading this article about forums for parents who are estranged from their children and I couldn't help but think there's a lot of Q-believers who blame the deep state for their kids not talking to them anymore.

quote:

Why Do They Do It? [omit context and details in their accounts of various incidents]

"So their children's words can't reflect badly on them" is the obvious reason. Members who have aired their children's grievances outside the endlessly enabling warmth of estranged parents' forums have been stung by people who took their children's side, and they've learned not to give their opponents ammunition.

But it runs deeper than that. Many members truly can't remember what their children said. Anything tinged with negative emotion, anything that makes them feel bad about themselves, shocks them so deeply that they block it out. They really can't remember anything but screaming. This emotional amnesia shapes their entire lives, pushing them to associate only with people who won't criticize them, training their families to shelter them from blows so thoroughly that the softest protest feels like a fist to the face.

But it runs even deeper than that. Posts in estranged parents' forums are vague. Members recount stories with the fewest possible details, the least possible context. They don't recreate entire scenes, repeat entire conversations, give entire text exchanges; they paraphrase hours of conversation away. The only element they describe in detail is their own grief or rage. Nor do the other members press them for more information.

Compare this with the forums for adult children of abusers, where the members not only cut-and-paste email exchanges into their posts, they take photos of handwritten letters and screenshot text conversations. They recreate scenes in detail, and if the details don't add up, the other members question them about it. They get annoyed when a member's paraphrase changes the meaning of a sentence, or when omitted details change the meaning of a meeting. They care about precision, context, and history.

The difference isn't a matter of style, it's a split between two ways of perceiving the world. In one worldview, emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion. If a member gives one set of details to describe how angry she is about a past event, and a few days later gives a contradictory set of details to describe how sad she is about the same event, both versions are legitimate because both emotions are legitimate.

Context is malleable because the full picture may not support the member's emotion. If a member adds details that undermine her emotion, the other members considerately ignore them. For example, one woman posted that she felt wounded and betrayed because a few days beforehand, her daughter had agreed to let the mother and one of the mother's friends drop by her house to visit. On the day of the visit, the daughter said she wasn't up for a visit. She had gone to the doctor so the doctor could examine her incision for infection. She had gotten the incision two weeks earlier, when she had a C-section while miscarrying a near-term baby the day before Christmas. The mother was broken because her daughter accused her of being selfish. The members all agreed that the daughter was the selfish one, that she had no right to speak to her mother like that, and that she should be more supportive of her mother in her mother's grief for her lost grandchild.

Emotion creates reality.

In the second worldview, reality creates emotion. Members want the full picture so they can decide whether the poster's emotions are justified. Small details can change the entire tenor of a forum's response; members see a distinction between "She said I'm worthless" and "She said something that made me feel worthless." Members recognize that unjustified emotions (like supersensitivity due to trauma, or irritation with another person that colors the view of everything the person does) are real and deserve respect, but they also believe that unjustified emotions shouldn't be acted on. They show posters different ways to view the situation and give advice on how to handle the emotions. In short, they believe that external events create emotional responses, that only some responses are justified, that people's initial perceptions of events are often flawed, and that understanding external events can help people understand and manage emotions.

The first viewpoint, "emotion creates reality," is truth for a great many people. Not a healthy truth, not a truth that promotes good relationships, but a deep, lived truth nonetheless. It's seductive. It means that whatever you're feeling is just and right, that you're never in the wrong unless you feel you're in the wrong. For people whose self-image is so battered and fragile that they can't bear anything but validation, often it feels like the only way they can face the world.

bowser fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 23:48

MadJackal: Apr 30, 2004

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1157340280410050560

This is the core of Republican authoritarianism.

It doesn't matter if the base is completely removed from reality, all that matters is they're fighting for conservatism (whatever that means at the moment beyond shunting wealth to the rich).

# ? Aug 3, 2019 00:55

Parakeet vs. Phone: Nov 6, 2009

There probably is something to be said for QAnon being a little unique in its danger. The 90s conspiracy theories were still dangerous. There were at least a few communities of hardcore religious and militia people that formed a network to plan and stoke a guerrilla war against the federal government. They probably had some role in the Oklahoma City bombing and definitely at least radicalized McVeigh.

But most of the actual theories preached stockpiling guns and hiding on your ranch until you died in a shootout over tax evasion. The community around Q is pushing people to "investigate" and take action. They're special agents in the game, even if Q keeps stalling them with the promise of the declas. It seems like we're lucky that there hasn't been a major body count yet as people get frustrated. The almost mass shooting over Pizzagate was uncomfortably close.

Cali's case is kind of wild since the initial assumption was that the QAnon stuff was just pulled out of his rear end to try to avoid being killed in retaliation for an obvious hit. Then it turns out there's a whole history to it and it really was over loving QAnon.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 04:45

Dr. Killjoy: Oct 9, 2012

Ehhhh even with the advent of the internet Qanon still has nothing on the Satanic Panic. Law enforcement* fell for it and took advantage of he situation and the actual media encouraged the situation with little regard of the consequences (or by design). The myth being cordoned to the Internet certainly does help spread it because of its �hidden� and �counterculture� value but that just means even if some maybe potentially dangerous people are roped into it by and large there�s very little real power held the movement, especially compared the 80s iteration of it.

*Nowadays playacting as Rustin Cohle is much harder than just beating a speeder half to death to pretend your saving the world

# ? Aug 3, 2019 05:39

pseudanonymous: Aug 30, 2008; When you make the second entry and the debits and credits balance, and you blow them to hell.

Parakeet vs. Phone posted:

There probably is something to be said for QAnon being a little unique in its danger. The 90s conspiracy theories were still dangerous. There were at least a few communities of hardcore religious and militia people that formed a network to plan and stoke a guerrilla war against the federal government. They probably had some role in the Oklahoma City bombing and definitely at least radicalized McVeigh.

But most of the actual theories preached stockpiling guns and hiding on your ranch until you died in a shootout over tax evasion. The community around Q is pushing people to "investigate" and take action. They're special agents in the game, even if Q keeps stalling them with the promise of the declas. It seems like we're lucky that there hasn't been a major body count yet as people get frustrated. The almost mass shooting over Pizzagate was uncomfortably close.

Cali's case is kind of wild since the initial assumption was that the QAnon stuff was just pulled out of his rear end to try to avoid being killed in retaliation for an obvious hit. Then it turns out there's a whole history to it and it really was over loving QAnon.

Dangerous is a very slippery unclear kind of word. Is it possible some Q-anon nutters will commit some violent acts? I think it's highly likely. But it's not an ideology with a call to any kind of action. I'm not worried about mass boomers rising up and battling the deep state. It mirrors Christian Eschatology in some ways, and most of that is a very passive, viewing role for the faithful.

Over 100 people die a day in car accidents in the United States. I'd be loving blown away if Q-anon ever leads to 100 deaths.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 05:54

im on the net me boys: Feb 19, 2017; Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjhhhhhhjhhhhhhhhhjjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh cannabis

QAnon is a cult that has a great potential for violence and has already two deaths to its name

# ? Aug 3, 2019 05:55

pseudanonymous: Aug 30, 2008; When you make the second entry and the debits and credits balance, and you blow them to hell.

im on the net me boys posted:

QAnon is a cult that has a great potential for violence and has already two deaths to its name

Which, over the course of 2 years, in a country of 328,000,000 people is statistically non-existent. You should be far more worried (100 times more worried) about trees. They are loving everywhere. They have a mission. They have a plan. And they could fall on you.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 05:58

im on the net me boys: Feb 19, 2017; Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjhhhhhhjhhhhhhhhhjjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh cannabis

The QAnon bitches are going to snap if they feel like the promise that the good guys have it handled is broken or if Q orders them to do something

# ? Aug 3, 2019 06:03

Parakeet vs. Phone: Nov 6, 2009

In fairness, yeah Satanic Panic probably is the better comparison. It was a framework that let idiots pretend that they were fighting a great battle that was 97% driving around looking for Satan worshipers in graveyards on a full moon and spreading rumors about black cats getting adopted for sacrifices with the occasional truly horrifying incident. At least for the moment we're not getting a bunch of 20/20 specials about Q.

When Q fades away it'll hopefully just be another failed prophecy thing where everyone just pretends like it never happened, or it didn't really fail.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 06:37

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

One of the deaths was an old mobster, not much of a loss imho.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 06:40

Corsair Pool Boy: Dec 17, 2004; College Slice

zoux posted:

The most dangerous game is....D&D

Total Harvested Adrenochrome Count: 0

# ? Aug 3, 2019 06:52

Blattdorf: Aug 10, 2012; "This will be the best for both of us, Bradley."
"Meow."

If everyone is so concerned about Q, why not just ask the president about it? The press sure seems to spend a lot of time acknowledging Q's existence and disparaging it, but they can't be bothered to prod Trump about it. Isn't the president supposed to be a central figure in all of this?

# ? Aug 3, 2019 08:59

pop fly to McGillicutty: Feb 2, 2004; A peckish little mouse!

Mantis42 posted:

One of the deaths was an old mobster, not much of a loss imho.

Mentally ill civilians don't get to determine who gets to live and who gets to die, sorry.

Blattdorf posted:

If everyone is so concerned about Q, why not just ask the president about it? The press sure seems to spend a lot of time acknowledging Q's existence and disparaging it, but they can't be bothered to prod Trump about it. Isn't the president supposed to be a central figure in all of this?

Lol

# ? Aug 3, 2019 11:00

The Chairman: Jun 30, 2003; But you forget, mon ami, that there is evil everywhere under the sun

As long as Trump's president I think the Qanon population's going to remain sated and keep trusting the process. I'd be worried about what happens when he's no longer President, especially if he loses next year or dies suddenly.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 13:11

CrowdControl: Aug 2, 2011; Uhh Tommy, I think I'm just gonna sleep at my house tonight...

The Chairman posted:

As long as Trump's president I think the Qanon population's going to remain sated and keep trusting the process. I'd be worried about what happens when he's no longer President, especially if he loses next year or dies suddenly.

If the past is anything to go by they will just believe it's all part of the plan. They will say he was in too deep an Trump intentionally blew the election in order to fight the Deep State from the outside.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 14:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 12:45

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

im on the net me boys posted:

QAnon is a cult that has a great potential for violence and has already two deaths to its name

Honestly people have killed for far less. I think you're really assuming too much about how far reaching this could be. It's pure sensationalism.

# ? Aug 3, 2019 15:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #QAnon: Slacktivism For Fascists

«‹›472 »