|
Helsing posted:You have not actually provided any compelling evidence that your interpretation is more plausible than the alternatives. The fact you would draw to try to stop the noble crusading hero who posts so hard and totally de-converted that one person by spamming their Facebook is a strong indicator you are an agent of Q^-1.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Bucky, your manic meltdown was giving me so much anxiety I couldn’t even look at this thread, so for your sake please talk to your doctor about starting or increasing some meds. I say this honestly out of care and concern, you’re worrying me dude. Everyone else; just stop antagonizing Bucky if you know it’s not going to go anywhere you want and just put them on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Ambitious Spider posted:That everyone is secretly trans theory reminds me of the flat earth one. If you suppose it’s true.... so what? Who cares nothing changes. It's actually a kind of important combination of a couple different strands of conspiracy theories. First, secret societies have long been associated with libertinism. Trans is just the latest form of sexual impropriety that they can go after since other forms have become more accepted. Couple that with the esotericism and 19th century mysticism surrounding Baphomet as a hermaphrodite god it's easy to accuse the synarchs as being ritually transformed into a different gender by their Caanite masters as part of the broader Judmas. If it is true, it means that the synarchy is real and it's plain to see. Just like how the Twin Towers were obviously a temple to Baal. By seeing the signs of ritual devotion you can confirm that the conspiracy theory is real. It's hard to prove that there is a Babylonian cult that has ruled the world for the last 5000 years but if you are crazy you can see signs of it everywhere which validates your belief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Can someone please tell RA to leave me alone, I’ve asked them nicely already, but they keep going and just used the word violent You cannot be serious with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
50s girl groupon posted:Bucky, your manic meltdown was giving me so much anxiety I couldn’t even look at this thread, so for your sake please talk to your doctor about starting or increasing some meds. I say this honestly out of care and concern, you’re worrying me dude. This strategy is suggested time and again about people like Bucky and Prester Jane and other oft ignored posters, and it simply doesn't work. They post their ranting pants on head diatribes and someone always bites, and then there's pages of replies and replies to replies that you end up reading regardless. It also punishes victims instead of perpetrators. The bad poster should be dealt with, the not bad posters shouldn't have to endure extra steps becuse of them. This is essentially equivalent to just saying "wear a mask it'll protect you from the MAGA hat who refuses to wear a mask".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
SA has a long and proud tradition of being a halfway house for genuinely crazy people. For every hundred shitposters with delusions of grandeur you get a genuine star like Caro or that dude who tried to walk across the country. An insane wandering man trying to deprogram chuds has a lot of promise. I want to see where this goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Bucky quarantine thread when???
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Buckys' right, tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
50s girl groupon posted:Bucky, your manic meltdown was giving me so much anxiety I couldn’t even look at this thread, so for your sake please talk to your doctor about starting or increasing some meds. I say this honestly out of care and concern, you’re worrying me dude. I frankly didn't have the spoons to come back and say: Bucky connect the puzzle pieces for me. You claim these disparate points speak for themselves, and I've given it a solid try to connect the pieces. I literally spent about two hours analyzing evidence similar to yours to try and debunk this after a Facebook friend posted it. This turned out to be a complete waste of time, which I generally believe is the point of this kind of horseshit conspiracy posting, but I digress. Your posting is like dumping a box of puzzle pieces on the floor insisting they fit together, but when I try and put them together and make the image on the box, only like three of them fit together, and the rest all seem like pieces from different puzzles. Even when they DO fit, by chance, they don't look like the picture on the box. So like... instead of dumping a bunch of articles by randos on Medium, a few Yahoo news articles about wildly different events, namedropping some capitalist ghouls, and saying "it speaks for itself..." Explain how they actually connect, and prove that Roger Stone or Jim Watkins or whoever the villain of the week is is the real and true Q. And, more importantly, why it has to be that person, as opposed to a FYAD shitposter not following safari rules on the chans and then things getting out of hand. edit: tl;dr, explain why I shouldn't just Occam's razor your whole argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Or what possible difference it makes even if it was, when I contend that there is a: nothing you can do about it if it was and b: even if you did something about it it wouldn't stop it at this point and c: even if your conspiracy nonsense was correct then what stops someone else doing exactly the same thing at will, because you even apparently acknowledge that it is predicated on a mindset that is pre-existing and on a phenomen that occurs regularly. The obsession is pointless in every conceviable way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or what possible difference it makes even if it was, when I contend that there is a: nothing you can do about it if it was and b: even if you did something about it it wouldn't stop it at this point and c: even if your conspiracy nonsense was correct then what stops someone else doing exactly the same thing at will. The obsession is pointless in every conceviable way. Going the  route is a really dumb position, and actively gives Bucky ammo to dismiss people who challenge them. It would generally be interesting to know who Q is, or more likely what group is running the psyop. But I've still not seen enough to reject the null: That this whole mess sprouted organically from internet shitposting, and hit critical mass once enough people susceptible (Uncle Bill and Aunt Cheryl who believe Hillary Clinton eats babies) and enough grifters who can turn a profit (Alex Jones, who started off just wanting to make money but is now probably a True Faith believer in his own bullshit) got a hold of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
It's not a dumb position when he phrases this entire thing from a position of this being some amazing new weapon that we, personally, need to figure out how to defeat by following a trail of breadcrumbs. This bizzare notion that he's somehow saving the world and doing everyone a favour is half the reason it's so stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not a dumb position when he phrases this entire thing from a position of this being some amazing new weapon that we, personally, need to figure out how to defeat by following a trail of breadcrumbs. This bizzare notion that he's somehow saving the world and doing everyone a favour is half the reason it's so stupid. I'm perfectly fine with people having a delusion that somehow knowing this one piece of knowledge will be the kryptonite that brings down the system. Their disappointment when that doesn't happen doesn't affect my life one bit. I am interested in the answer for knowledge sake. And weirdly, the existence of Q casts doubt on the hypothesis that knowing a bit of damning info isn't a silver bullet if you give it to the right person. The weird and obnoxious part is when they don't come off it after having their argument pointed out as weak and not actually going through the steps to address the people going, "wait that doesn't make sense," with an explanation that connects the dots and makes sense of the puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
I mean I think if anything qanon is the strongest possible proof that factual information is completely and absolutely irrelevant to a quite large number of people and it's not "knowing" a piece of information that is powerful it is reinforcing people's biases with appealing sounding nonsense spoken in an authoritative voice. Which entertainingly makes rattling off a big list of names and a link to an article nobody reads a very appropriate argumentation style 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
Incelshok Na posted:genuinely crazy. pseudanonymous posted:ranting pants on head diatribes 50s girl groupon posted:your manic meltdown Please quote the posts you think fit these descriptions. (Aside from arguably one short sarcastic post on the day this whole thing literally made its way to the actual President, the day after I'd been patronisingly told that it wasn't going anywhere. And of course my response to someone presuming to speak to what is in my heart.) And before you say it's the volume, remember that I have been clearly, deliberately, and maliciously misrepresented, by multiple people. I'm not stoked about that. I have tried to avoid engaging where possible and apologise if that ever fell short. I have answered basically every question in good faith and believe I have been almost unfailingly polite. If you think otherwise then please show where. Helsing posted:You have not actually provided any compelling evidence that your interpretation is more plausible than the alternatives. I've provided plenty. If none of that does it for you, that's fine. If you want to tell us exactly what it is you take issue with in the substance of it, I'd be interested to hear it. Which part is it that you find so implausible - that these people would have a motive to do something like this, or that they would be able to do it? Why is this unusual given what we know about politics and propaganda? Why do you think you have a better understanding of the situation than Frederick Brennan? Warmachine posted:people going, "wait that doesn't make sense," Which part doesn't make sense. OwlFancier posted:an article nobody reads  OwlFancier posted:The obsession is pointless in every conceviable way. you have 6 pages of posts in this thread going back two and a half years, repeatedly insisting that it's purely natural and spontaneous, and that even if it isn't that interrogating it is pointless anyway. Is there a point to that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Why are you even staying here if you get so upset at the slightest pushback? Is this part of your deprogramming hobby
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:you have 6 pages of posts in this thread going back two and a half years, repeatedly insisting that it's purely natural and spontaneous, and that even if it isn't that interrogating it is pointless anyway. Is there a point to that? It's a form of sense-making. Human nature is to try to infer the character of the things we encounter in the world. Once we have an approximate understanding of a thing we know how to navigate around it and we know what our obligations are to it. We can make predictions about the thing, which makes the future less uncertain, which makes life less stressful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
So you’re not gonna explain anything then, you’re just gonna continue to be butthurt and paranoid. Got it. Bucky Fullminster posted:Please quote the posts you think fit these descriptions. Here you go Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Which part doesn't make sense. I can't be arsed to do this whole thing over again, so here's a copy-paste of my Facebook post that brought me to this thread. It was right around the same time you started posting stuff about Q = Jim. Me posted:tl;dr: The evidence is not strong enough to prove Jim Watkins is Q, most of it correlates but does not actually prove a connection. The most likely followup points are from the Tiktok video linked in the above Medium article, but again need more work to prove a connection. I say not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
The past ten pages have been nothing but smug gloating about how unbelievably stupid it is to ponder about the origins of Q out loud, how useless it is to try and deradicalize it’s followers, and that nothing matters, actually. In the past week and a half there have been dozens of worldwide Q rallies, official social media responses to curb the tide of crazy, and Trump giving a wink-nod during a press conference, all of which completely undiscussed because three or four dipshits want the whole thread to know how smart they are for not caring about Q in the Q thread my take: shut the gently caress up and post on topic
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:I can't be arsed to do this whole thing over again, so here's a copy-paste of my Facebook post that brought me to this thread. It was right around the same time you started posting stuff about Q = Jim. When I say I don't have anything to add, I'm not trying to be sneaky, I mean these people seem to have more information and an understanding of the matter than myself and I'm happy to defer to them for the time being. If the evidence presented there isn't enough for you, I've said that's fine and I'm happy to concede the point. I feel like I've been pretty clear about that. It doesn't change the thesis. Jim being Q is like the least important part of the puzzle here. My point is that it's the work of an influence agency. It's perfectly consistent with the evidence. My question to you is, which part of that doesn't make sense? But to answer an actual question: "why should we believe Brennen? Why would he expose Watkins, and more importantly, would he have a motive to lie?" Listen to his episode on Behind the Bastards about JW, watch the infinite evil documentary Carnival of Shrews posted, follow him on twitter. I find him to be sincere and credible. He would expose Watkins because Watkins is a prick, it's the right thing, and he feels that after all that's happened it's the least he can do. Would he have a motive to lie? Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:When I say I don't have anything to add, I'm not trying to be sneaky, I mean these people seem to have more information and an understanding of the matter than myself and I'm happy to defer to them for the time being. If the evidence presented there isn't enough for you, I've said that's fine and I'm happy to concede the point. I feel like I've been pretty clear about that. What do they say? You're literally posting Qanon level 'do your own research, follow the threads!' now. What evidence did you find compelling?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:What do they say? You're literally posting Qanon level 'do your own research, follow the threads!' now. What evidence did you find compelling? Qultists look at all 'the evidence' they've consumed and they /can't image/ a plausible explanation for the serendipity of it all, apart from The Narrative. So if your goal is to 'deprogram' a Qultist, having an alternative narrative that accounts for all of 'the evidence' they have consumed PLUS adds additional narrative-relevant information (and hbrings intrigue! and an opportunity to fight for justice!) is an effort to wrest control of their mind from the Consensus Reality hivemind. If you're trying to stop vulnerable friends from slipping down the 'Rabbit Hole', having a relatively short and satisfying narrative that accounts for what they might encounter while 'doing their own research' can significantly stimy the growth of this virulent and malicious meme. Shouting down such an effort strikes me as really weird. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Shouting down such an effort strikes me as really weird. I am directly and openly asking for more information.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Apathy420 posted:The past ten pages have been nothing but smug gloating about how unbelievably stupid it is to ponder about the origins of Q out loud, how useless it is to try and deradicalize it’s followers, and that nothing matters, actually. Nobody is saying that. I think Q is a problem in how much damage it's done, and I don't particularly care if Bucky has a different interpretation of Q's origins. It's his violent, Qultist level resistance to anyone challenging him that is some rather clear evidence of how this is negatively impacting his mental health. The inability to discuss facets of Q without getting upset if you don't agree with his specific origin story is the issue. Uglycat posted:Qultists look at all 'the evidence' they've consumed and they /can't image/ a plausible explanation for the serendipity of it all, apart from The Narrative. So if your goal is to 'deprogram' a Qultist, having an alternative narrative that accounts for all of 'the evidence' they have consumed PLUS adds additional narrative-relevant information (and hbrings intrigue! and an opportunity to fight for justice!) is an effort to wrest control of their mind from the Consensus Reality hivemind. I guarantee if anyone came at me like Bucky is I'd be less inclined to believe them. He hasn't offered any evidence his deprogramming strategy works. He posted one random woman (with what I assume is without her consent) who didn't seem too deep in given how easy it was. He didn't have any real evidence other than pulling a Johnathan Frakes "That's false" to every point she brought up. This isn't at all typical and if you look at Bucky's posting in a larger context he's scattered and angrily pushes back against any challenges, meaning I really cock an eyebrow at how good he actually is at this. Qultists will say more overly violent and confrontational things if you challenge their beliefs, meanwhile Bucky asks people to be banned because they said "violently" one time. I'm sorry I don't buy it. I think he means well, but good intentions with bad method isn't actually healthy and if you want to learn how deprogram conspiracy theorists, I would highly recommend looking elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
If you want a short, satisfying explanation for why the rich are all sex criminals, just say "it's because being rich lets you get away with being a sex criminal, and also all the rich are freaks" because it's simple, factually and intuitively true. And is also a much better attitude to have than substituting one conspiracy theory for another. Getting someone to believe your conspiracy theory instead of the one you don't like doesn't really seem like an improvement to their mental health or an improvement to the world at large, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Apathy420 posted:my take: shut the gently caress up and post on topic How Q could catch on in people is at least as important a question to explore as who is behind Q. The Q phenomenon could be repeated. It's good to explore whether there are ways to inoculate ourselves against stuff like it, and that means exploring how it came to catch on, what its mechanisms and analogues are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:How Q could catch on in people is at least as important a question to explore as who is behind Q. In that interest, I have a document to share. It's a thread from whyweprotest.net, a site started by me and two other goons at the birth of Chanology as a somethingawful-style forum with a moderation policy that was inclusive of channers, goons, gaia users, ex-scientologists, and people from all corners of the internet that were down for destroying scientology. I'm the OP, user 'Consensus', and it's absolutely imperfect (and much will be familiar to readers of this thread), but it was an effort I made a decade ago to answer the very question you're bringing up. https://whyweprotest.net/threads/on-brainwashing-long.11614/ not to give myself attaboys, but I'm pretty proud of this bit of writing (and the influence it's had) flawed as it is. It's the closest thing I've ever done to an 'effortpost', and it's admittedly a bit unpolished. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:How Q could catch on in people is at least as important a question to explore as who is behind Q. The Q phenomenon could be repeated. It's good to explore whether there are ways to inoculate ourselves against stuff like it, and that means exploring how it came to catch on, what its mechanisms and analogues are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
I mean a large part of my thesis is that it isn't, it is, as you say, mostly just how social media works, combined with a secular mythology of various nonsense conspiracies of the last hundred years or so and a lot of people with a conspiracy theory mindset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This may have been discussed earlier in the thread and I missed it due to, well, everything, but what I wonder is: How is Q, as a theory/conspiracy narrative in itself, different from (to list the ones I can remember from my lifetime) UFO abduction theories, the stories of the black helicopters, the various 9/11 was a fake with holograms theories, the birther stuff, etc.? It does not seem to be different in its fundamental structure, and what seems to be amplifying it is the mixture of social media becoming as deeply penetrated as it is now, the US President being connected to the movement, and (maybe) some signal boosting from people like RT etc. who want to stir poo poo up to weaken the yanquis. It’s largely built out of elements of those prior conspiracy theories. Not much ufo stuff, but alien abduction was basically about child molestation enabled by the powerful anyway, just like the satanic panic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean a large part of my thesis is that it isn't, it is, as you say, mostly just how social media works, combined with a secular mythology of various nonsense conspiracies of the last hundred years or so and a lot of people with a conspiracy theory mindset. Yeah it’s not. We’ve had these almost exact same conspiracy theory beats through the entire Middle Ages, it just tended to be aimed toward Jews and Romany people and if it wasn’t adrenochrome, it was stealing blood (Middle Ages) or organs (Victorian era), or semen/eggs (70’s-00’s Alien stuff) or whatever else. This is what (western?) society makes humans afraid of and primes them to believe. That’s why it doesn’t matter one whit whether Roger Stone personally wrote each Q drop, or if it just got capitalized on later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This may have been discussed earlier in the thread and I missed it due to, well, everything, but what I wonder is: How is Q, as a theory/conspiracy narrative in itself, different from (to list the ones I can remember from my lifetime) UFO abduction theories, the stories of the black helicopters, the various 9/11 was a fake with holograms theories, the birther stuff, etc.? It does not seem to be different in its fundamental structure, and what seems to be amplifying it is the mixture of social media becoming as deeply penetrated as it is now, the US President being connected to the movement, and (maybe) some signal boosting from people like RT etc. who want to stir poo poo up to weaken the yanquis. It's also the environment in which Q exists. There's been a sustained attack on expertise and scientific truth, and the idea of "the truth" for a long time in the United States. The US is a country with a reflexive attitude about how any ignorant yahoo's moronic opinion is as good as an educated professional in the field, and this has been amplified by one of the two ruling parties as their policies have become increasingly unmoored from reality. The modern conservative movement is actually extremely post-modern in it's attitude to things like "facts" and "reality" despite their repeatedly decrying deconstructive narratives. The modern media, influenced by a 24 hour newscape is ill-equipped to push back on this sad state of affairs due to the competition for access to journalism. Before 24/7 competitive cable news politicians had to get access to journalists. Now the reverse is true, so if you piss off powerful people enough you get shut out of reporting. Combine this with Fox News (and OANN) craven willingness to push a party line, the death of expertise, and the interpermeable existence of social media and bot amplification and addiction oriented strategies by tech giants, and you've got a very fertile ground in which to grow ludicrous conspiracy theories. No moon, Zapruder, Close Moon, Flat Earth, Lizard Aliens, Satanic Cultists, any of them could've done very well in this environment. There's nothing particularly unique about Q except possibly Donald Trumps unhinged behavior and narcissistic personality disorder combined with early onset dementia and an unhealthy lifestyle and a life of privilege such that the truth rarely intruded - even when he ran his companies into the ground the banks covered him because he was worth more to them solvent, and his falsely affluent image was part of the value of his enterprises, so even when he failed massively he was still enabled to act like a sucesful businessman and jetsetter; this unique pairing is simply a coincedence of fate. It doesn't require any bond-esque mastermind behind Q, it's a useful way of controlling idiots that they happened upon, like a story about a Jew who wasn't really a carpenter, and people in power have latched on to it and amplified it, as people in history always have, and because both the GoP and Russia want people disassociated from the fundamental facts of reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
The fact that it incorporates so many other made up fringe ideas is also, I think, evidence of it being organic. Because the way it does this is repeated over and over again, someone in a crank community starts spreading it around in language that community understands (because they came upon it in a language they understood by membership of a different group) and then it evolves and incorporates their ideas into it. And it doesn't matter if it completely contradicts other stuff, it doesn't matter that a bunch of wannabe or actual child molesters on some lovely image board are the originator, it carries the promise of exciting new esoteric knowledge and vindication for everything you have ever believed (but the liberal media say is wrong) and people just go with it. It's memes for the brain rotted right wing. It's them all talking to each other and repeating back the images and ideas that they've been living in their whole lives and then they all go "wow yeah I also feel that way isn't that amazing it must be loving providence" like no poo poo you feel that way that's called living in a loving society, yes you get the reference, we all get the loving reference. Except instead of laughing and moving on some of them are just going nuts about it it, probably because they were already nuts to begin with and this is their latest fad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Right, like this isn't new in American history. There was an Anti-Masonic Party really early on and you can probably guess their platform. I believe at their first party convention they nominated a Freemason for president, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Your options for prevention if you have old and/or crazy people you care about are either ensuring they never get exposed to it or ensuring their contact with it is in such a manner that it does not appeal to them, creating a pre-exisitng bias against it. Otherwise, much like a disease, you should assume they will come in contact with it and they are at a higher risk of a negative outcome if they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Apathy420 posted:The past ten pages have been nothing but smug gloating about how unbelievably stupid it is to ponder about the origins of Q out loud, how useless it is to try and deradicalize it’s followers, and that nothing matters, actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you want a short, satisfying explanation for why the rich are all sex criminals, just say "it's because being rich lets you get away with being a sex criminal, and also all the rich are freaks" because it's simple, factually and intuitively true. But not all rich people are sex criminals. And 'simple, factually and intuitively true' needs kicking to the curb. Sometimes the truth is complex, sometimes it's incomplete, and very often, it's emotionally unsatisfying -- ie, the closest we can get to a factually correct explanation of how something happened does not feel 'intuitively true' at all. It absolutely matters whether someone believes Epstein was: 1) An intelligent, manipulative predator who achieved his ends via money, blackmail, and the well-proven tactic of recruiting a female confederate to lure in more victims. 2) Merely one prong of a World Elite Satanic conspiracy to rape, torture, and devour kidnapped children whilst juicing their adrenal glands. Option 2 is not 'intuitively true'; Option 2 is bullshit. And anyone OK with it circulating because 'the rich are bad, right?' is OK with disinformation propaganda. It's old now, but the NBC News article on the grifters who turbo-charged the Q movement is still one of the best I've read on the topic, so here it is again: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531 Tracy Diaz, Paul Furber, and James Coleman Rogers, the people who pushed Q to mainstream attention via the now-banned r/CBTS_Stream on Reddit (Wayback link) which existed mainly to flip traffic to the Youtube channel of Tracy Diaz, are still milking the Q-cow to this day. I cannot say who precisely started posting as Q on 8chan (as opposed to Q's brief stint on 4chan) , but I am near-certain that at one point, the Q poster was Rogers and his wife, Christina Urso. The periscope vid of him logging in as Q is gone, but here's Rogers spouting on about a Q drop regarding a bike rack in memory of Seth Rich. The only problem is, the post lacks the Q tripcode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbecyoqCm0c A lot of people posted on 8chan as Q without the tripcode. Coleman Rogers could easily have said 'whoops, I wasn't paying attention there'; instead, he said that Q must have posted the bike rack image without logging in, and that he, James Coleman Rogers, was able to intuitively tell that this was an authentic Q post nonetheless. I don't say 'this proves he was an early Q without a doubt', merely that it makes it probable. In one way, sure, it doesn't matter exactly who these people are, there are thousands like them. In another, it matters deeply, because: 1) you can otherwise get into a spiral of 'conspiracy theories all the way down', and the notion that QAnon has been a deliberately-cultivated psy op from the start. 2) social media companies have created a powerful, cross-linked disinformation weapon that literally anyone can use, and it turns out that when you combine this cross-linking with gaming search engine results, meme-based propaganda about a Conspiracy of (((Ultimate Evil))) about which you can Educate Yourself by Googling actually works on many, many people. Statement 2 is far scarier to me than Get Me Roger Stone: Conspiracy Edition. Carnival of Shrews fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
I live in Adelaide, Australia, and on Saturday I got caught waiting for a tram in town while the Q protest was happening just nearby. It was extremely upsetting to see how well-attended it was, but I'm not sure everyone was there for the same thing. When they started marching, the main group of protesters seemed pretty happy to let the people screaming into a megaphone about children in paedophile cages walk some distance ahead, on the other side of the road. I walked a little closer out of morbid curiosity. The crowd was (sit down for this one) overwhelmingly white. Looked like lots of young families with their kids in tow. It seemed like they were carrying mix of anti-vax and anti-mask signage for the most part, but there were more than a few people absolutely decked out in Q paraphernalia. Nothing overtly political on display. Most people watching just seemed kind of baffled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
My de-conversion experiments were not the point. I was asked directly, “what are you going to do about it?” So I answered. Research, write, and publish, to give people a resource. And in the meantime, continue to sound the alarm that this seems to be a deliberate propaganda campaign. I was told that wasn’t going to have any effect. “Lol your idea of praxis is posting. Log off and do something helpful for your community you hack…. I’m saying if you volunteer at a foodbank or homeless shelter you do more good for keeping people away from cults because you set yourself up as someone who is doing more than just screaming into the void”. That was… entirely unprovoked. Why on earth would they react like that? Over something which has absolutely nothing to do with them? Why would they be so insistent in telling someone else how to spend their own time? So I showed that it had in fact had a positive effect, with a conversation with someone who said she couldn’t sleep because the screams of children were haunting her nightmares. And who now can sleep. The article has now been shared hundreds of times on twitter and FB and racked up 30K views. Again, thank you to those who contributed in one way or another. Note what happens when someone is confronted with evidence that directly contradicts their narrative. How they double down and deny it and discredit it or desperately try to diminish it. Still now, days later. Instead of just saying ‘huh, ok cool fair enough, one less person posting Q stuff, good to know.’ Think about why that is. Now note how basically nothing in RA’s post above is true. Note that people have actually said that it’s stupid to wonder. Note that I have been actively encouraging and welcoming challenges, not getting upset or angry let alone violent. Note how when people disagree with me or don't find the evidence compelling, I explicitly say “that’s fine”. Even when my writing is brutally disparaged I say thank you. Note how I have offered evidence. Note how they have been politely asked multiple times to leave me alone, yet talk about consent. Note how I never said they should be banned. Note how even though they say to "look elsewhere", they don’t actually provide anything. Note how they have still failed to provide anything that they have done themselves, despite multiple requests. Also, note that I never said I was an expert or that this was the best way. I'm just some guy happy to share experiences, and I have explicitly asked for other suggestions. Note how I have agreed that it doesn’t really matter who started it. Note how I have agreed that it doesn’t even matter exactly who it is. My only point is that it does seem to be the work of an agency. Note how there has been nothing that contradicts that. Note how all attacks on that idea have to blow it up to a “bond-esque” “Dark Lord” super-villain, instead of dealing with the words as presented. Note how it’s called a “conspiracy”, instead of a perfectly predictable part of modern political propaganda. Because “conspiracy” is short hand for something which is by definition untrue, instead of a completely banal fact of life. None of this is directed at RA. I’m not wasting any more time there. The point is that if there is one thing we’ve learned from all this, it’s that letting maliciously false narratives stand on anonymous internet forums is something we need to be very careful about.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/politics/rick-gates-psy-group-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 12:26
|
|