|
Phobophilia posted:I mean sure, this isn't hard: Q started out as a bunch of basement dwelling losers roleplaying as government superagents, got kicked off 4chan and moved to 8chan, and has now been taken over by creepy sexpat serial killer who lives in the Phillipines. They's the kind of short form summary/narrative that is easy to throw out there. While there might not be anything incorrect in this post (depending on the interpretation of ‘taken over’), there is significant evidence to suggest it leaves out a lot of very important details.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Consider talking to your social worker or an adult you trust about adjusting your medication.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:While there might not be anything incorrect in this post (depending on the interpretation of ‘taken over’), there is significant evidence to suggest it leaves out a lot of very important details. Which details? You’ve been asked by a dozen posters and told by a nod to provide them instead of q drop posting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Which details? DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, TRUST THE PLAN
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:Here, let me try to get the thread back on track: Oh hey, the Jesuits! I suppose a conspiracy theory that's got a lot of Christian beliefs (or Christian adjacent ones) was bound to bring them up sooner or later. Jack Chick made a few comics about how the Jesuits were responsible for all the evils of the world based on the words of a con man named Alberto Rivera, who claimed the Jesuits were training him to infiltrate Protestant churches and destroy them, and revealed to him that secretly the Catholic Church was responsible for creating Islam, communism, Nazis, the Holocaust, Freemasonry, and were responsible for assassinating Lincoln and Kennedy. Also that the Jesuits were responsible for creating all other Bible translations than the KJV, so you know they're evil. I do like this part: quote:You thought the Roth's owned the Federal Reserve, or so that's what you have been told.... Just imagining this person going up to Ben Garrison and saying "You think the Rothschilds are behind the Federal Reserve and World Bank? You poor misguided fool" and shaking their head.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Unfortunately, a thing that they claim that they are doing is replacing people with body doubles as they get ready for the big moment. Some Qanon stuff already claims that Obama and Hillary and Bill and etc... have already been tried and judicially executed at Guantanamo. Most of this stuff is the first time I hear about it. Hillary was supposed to be already arrested back in 2016-2017 according to one post, but then in another post they let her fly around the world and take advantage of the Five Eyes network, so they could sniff out who else was in on it. Thinking back on it, that post couldn't have possible referred to the present situation (though these advance drops, as they are called, sound like deciphering the Bible code). Hillary is so deeply connected and has blackmail on so many people that she could break the law in broad daylight, admit to it and still skate all the way to the White House because who'd be brave enough to arrest her. The only person who was supposedly tried and executed was John McCain. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
Surely the must have some weird theory about McCain’s time as a POW. Surely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
Blattdorf posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 09:45
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:But yeah, bucky... Prester and I I think you're all the same person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Blattdorf posted:The only person who was supposedly tried and executed was John McCain. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea. the qanon is coming from inside the thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I think you're all the same person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:HW as well. They've successfully managed to execute several geriatrics. I guess when they're that old they don't bother with the cloning, they just get executed and disappear, the way one would of natural causes. It takes a giant leap of faith to take one Internet person's word for it (Q's? I can't remember if he made the claim or if it's just someone's theory that people ran with), so until some kind of undeniable proof of it surfaces, I'll assume there were no shenanigans involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:HW as well. They've successfully managed to execute several geriatrics. I guess when they're that old they don't bother with the cloning, they just get executed and disappear, the way one would of natural causes. And Bill Gates! He was executed back in 2013, according to my insane Q person at work. I wonder how many misremembered snippets of that thing about the Jesuits I'll hear today!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:HW as well. They've successfully managed to execute several geriatrics. I guess when they're that old they don't bother with the cloning, they just get executed and disappear, the way one would of natural causes. I still think the true hilarity is they said he was executed long after his actual death. So he would've had to have faked his death from being old as balls for reasons and then be waiting around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 13:06
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Oh hey, the Jesuits! I suppose a conspiracy theory that's got a lot of Christian beliefs (or Christian adjacent ones) was bound to bring them up sooner or later. Jack Chick made a few comics about how the Jesuits were responsible for all the evils of the world based on the words of a con man named Alberto Rivera, who claimed the Jesuits were training him to infiltrate Protestant churches and destroy them, and revealed to him that secretly the Catholic Church was responsible for creating Islam, communism, Nazis, the Holocaust, Freemasonry, and were responsible for assassinating Lincoln and Kennedy. Also that the Jesuits were responsible for creating all other Bible translations than the KJV, so you know they're evil. The Jesuits are enemy #1 for spiritual warfare types because they kept detailed records of the inquisition and spiritual warfare people believe in conclusions that over a hundred years of, erm, research do not bear out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
The Jesuits, that part of the Catholic church so near and dear that they got excommunicated multiple times. I want a conspiracy based around like the Benedictines or the Franciscans or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:While there might not be anything incorrect in this post (depending on the interpretation of ‘taken over’), there is significant evidence to suggest it leaves out a lot of very important details. Provide these details in an easily readable fashion with citations to the best of your ability or I'm thread banning you. I'm sick of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
Mad Hamish posted:And Bill Gates! He was executed back in 2013, according to my insane Q person at work. Actually he was killed by the remaining members of an indian family who were nearly eradicated by vaccines. I'm onto your limited hangouts and parallel constructions, parroting puppet gangster slave
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
bonelessdongs posted:Actually he was killed by the remaining members of an indian family who were nearly eradicated by vaccines. I thought he was killed by General Plymkin in the run-up to Saddam's return from the dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The bit that Donald Trump has already arrested and executed Obama and the Clintons and Bushes and Bill Gates and Tom Hanks and replaced them with clones is going to be relegated to the equivalent of when young Jesus killed another child with a curse. Biblical apocrypha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 06:53
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I've said it before, I'll say it again. The bit that Donald Trump has already arrested and executed Obama and the Clintons and Bushes and Bill Gates and Tom Hanks and replaced them with clones is going to be relegated to the equivalent of when young Jesus killed another child with a curse. Biblical apocrypha. It's one of the weirder aspects of the whole Q thing for a bunch of reasons. Normally these conspiracies are carried out by all powerful shadowy groups, but you the intrepid holder of secret knowledge can help defeat them with one weird trick. But Q is just, hey Donald Trump has a perfect plan already conceived and in motion to make all the bad things go away, all you need to do is sit back and smugly wait for your family to come crawling back and apologize for being so wrong. It is an anti-call to action in every way, but for some reason people still feel the need to march in public and announce that believe in Q despite that having no possible effect based on their own belief system. Now it obviously makes sense in a psychological fulfillment way, but it should have no meaning for the Q adherents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
This is worse than when prester jane started making GBS threads up this thread with their brand of pseudo smart brains waffle
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 09:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Provide these details in an easily readable fashion Whereas, 1. Political campaigns have been deliberately manipulating people’s perception of their candidate for decades 2. Conservative Capitalists are in general ruthless bastards 3. Roger Stone and Paul Manafort have been doing shady poo poo their whole careers, and DJT is one of their oldest clients 4. A company called Psy Group pitched the Trump campaign on infiltrating dark parts of the internet and using their ‘strong operating capabilities’ in order to influence people into supporting Trump 5. Bannon’s Cambridge Analytica is also capable of sophisticated digital influence 6. People have a natural propensity to conspiracy stories due to the power of their narrative, which can and has been exploited by the far-right in their fight against collectivism, in particular since the JBS 7. Stone worked with Alex Jones during the campaign to mobilise his audience of conspiracists 8. FBIanon, a character created on 4Chan, was singing from the same sheet as Stone 9. The IRA (and American equivalents) are able to use fake accounts and networks of bots to create narratives 10. Pizzagate emerged the day after the access Hollywood Tape 11. Q emerged the day after Manafort and Gates are indicted 12. Despite being obviously absurd, and appearing to “die” multiple times, it not only survives; it thrives 13. Someone doing it to cash in on a grift would have been unlikely to make it so easily falsifiable 14. 8kun itself does not appear to be a profitable enterprise 15. Like the administration, much of it is specifically consistent with Russian policy 16. Conspiracy adjacent “spiritual” social media accounts have been successful in driving people in the same direction, while also showing signs of being pro-russian 17. The ‘Save the Children’ campaign emerges as a modernised and sanitised version of blood libel, specifically to suck a whole new audience directly into supporting Trump, with stunning success 18. It has now reached the president 19. We’ve seen global demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people supporting the narrative, giving it a greater chance of reaching other people It is perfectly possible for “Q” to be the work of an influence agency. It is arguably at least as plausible, if not more so, than the idea that it is merely a “prank.” All that has been offered in the attempt to reject this hypothesis, is: 1. The idea that it is conceivable for it to have emerged and had such an impact organically 2. The idea that any suggestion of orchestration is absurd, because that would make it a “conspiracy”, which is taken to mean something which is by definition false, and precisely what people are here to laugh at. Furthermore, whereas; 1. The physical mechanics election itself are actively and openly being interfered with 2. The result of the election are almost certainly going to be disputed 3. Digital disinformation is going to play a role in influencing people’s behaviour between now and then and beyond 4. Much of this support is now being mobilised into a citizens’ militia This is a situation that warrants collaborative investigation to better understand the scope, shape, and scale of this operation and its myriad components, and a 'Qanon' thread on a Debate and Discussion forum is a suitable place to do that. Edit - of particularly pressing concern at the moment is the way that the response to Covid-19 is being used to validate the 'conspiracy narrative' more viscerally than ever before, and that is funnelling people who were previously ideologically opposed to Trump right to him and the Q world. It's possible that this is more of a Global thing than an American thing. There are many links and sources in previous posts and in this first link here, below that are some new ones which may also be helpful https://medium.com/@daniel.ed.morri...gn-c3e5b89dd734 https://graphika.com/reports/interpreting-social-qs-implications-of-the-evolution-of-qanon/ https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/wikileaks-data-justice-and-a-new-internet/ https://www.stratcomcoe.org/black-market-social-media-manipulation https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-democracy-survive-big-data-and-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/politics/rick-gates-psy-group-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omc-5zj70M0 
Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Some people are just really into being contrarians as well. I’ve known a few people in my life who couldn’t go a day without intentionally angering others, and they often did so by being aggressive about dumb conspiracy poo poo. One would talk about Alex Jones to the person seated next to him every day and the other would shout antivax stuff and tell people they were killing their kids by taking them to the doctor etc. In both cases, I don’t think they cared about anything except making others angry. It was like a compulsion. just like every other conspiracy in history the entire point is "i'm better than you" q is mean little people being mean in order to not feel like they're the bottom rung of society because they're not smart enough to know it's a class thing and racism will get them beat up
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Bucky I am just going to explain in tedious detail why your posting is not getting the reception you think that it should. You've now received several warnings from multiple different mods so I think this post is just a matter of clearing up any lingering confusion that you have here. I also want to be clear that it's fine to use this thread to speculate about Q being part of a larger agenda or to speculate about evidence that some particular person or group was behind Q, boosted its spread or otherwise profited from it. The issue here is that you're doing these massive thread monopolizing posting sprees and then employing a level of argumentation that is barely distinguishable from what the Q people themselves do. Bucky Fullminster posted:
I want to zero in on this because it is emblematic of the larger problem you seem to be having here. I've included the quote from myself that you're responding to and have bolded the relevant section. Going through the three hyper links you provided we get: 1) You reference the existence of Psy Group. That's it. 90% of the post is just quoting their sales pitch, as though that in any way supports your very specific interpretation of events in a dozen other areas. Your original commentary here is about 50 words long and it amounts to the following: in response to someone saying that there's no particular reason to think Q was anything other than a random prankster you claim that Q had foreknowledge of leaks coming in October, that they knew to "make certain words code for something sinister", and they had "rabidly focused political objectives". That is literally your entire argument. 2) Your second post I will actually quote selectively from: Bucky Fullminster posted:
So to summarize your arguments you think Q must be some kind of sophisticated and centralized op because 1) it was consistent, 2) it was actually really sloppy and 3) it was really effective even though you don't think it should have been. That's it. That's the sum total of your argument. That is apparently the basis on which you justify saying later in the thread that your hypothesis is at least as plausible as any other. 3) Is just a long list of hyper links to articles and tweets with no actual commentary from yourself. No, dropping off random pieces of writing from other people that are about a dog's breakfast of different and semi-related topics is not in any way commensurate with you "evidence that your interpretation is more plausible than the alternatives". This is all a very clear example of corkboard-and-string posting. You're just taking it for granted that some kind of huge and directed plan was executed and demanding that any skeptical person justify their skepticism. This is the inverse of how things are supposed to go. You are the one making the extraordinary claims and that means you're the one who is obliged to explain, in tedious detail, exactly why people should take your ideas seriously. Now if you're a normal person with some kind of life commitments outside this thread then it may be the case that you feel you have better uses for your time than putting together that kind of properly constructed and adequately supported argument. I wouldn't blame you for feeling that way. But if that is the case and you do not have the motivation to make those kinds of diligent effort posts then leave this thread in peace of at least post in a way that doesn't constantly monopolize the discussion and generate multiple reports a day from people concerned you're having an actual mental breakdown. One thing I can tell you is that this poo poo isn't going to cut it: Bucky Fullminster posted:It is perfectly possible for “Q” to be the work of an influence agency. It is arguably at least as plausible, if not more so, than the idea that it is merely a “prank.” This is literally getting things backwards. You don't just link together some events and then demand that everyone else prove to your satisfaction that your hypothesis is wrong. You, as the person making the claim, are obliged to demonstrate that there's really good reasons to believe your claims. The burden of proof is on you, and the more extraordinary the claims the stronger the evidence and reasoning backing up the claims should be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Ty for doing the effort post Helsing, I didn’t feel like writing up a big long thing and pointing out that he’s literally string and cork board posting his way to posting Alex Jones clips in favor of his argument. The irony of just how Qanon his posts look was overwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Another thing that can make an argument more convincing is to call out its flaws/weaknesses/assumptions yourself. That proves you've thought about it a lot and are trying at least a little to falsify it. You'll be seen as more credible and you'll avoid repeats of the same simple counterarguments (which in this thread is the point where the "who is Q" discussion always leaves off, it never gets any deeper). Edit: also: Bucky Fullminster posted:Holy mother of Karen, imagine being this entitled Owlfancier's posts are insightful and well-written. Don't jab at other people while you're claiming victimhood, it's hypocritical. indiscriminately fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Bucky I am just going to explain in tedious detail why your posting is not getting the reception you think that it should. You've now received several warnings from multiple different mods so I think this post is just a matter of clearing up any lingering confusion that you have here. Thank you, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:1) You reference the existence of Psy Group. That's it. 90% of the post is just quoting their sales pitch, as though that in any way supports your very specific interpretation of events They were pitching the Trump team on something which basically describes "Q". Does that not support the interpretation? quote:Your original commentary here is about 50 words long and it amounts to the following: in response to someone saying that there's no particular reason to think Q was anything other than a random prankster you claim that Q had foreknowledge of leaks coming in October, that they knew to "make certain words code for something sinister", and they had "rabidly focused political objectives". That is literally your entire argument. FBIanon, not Q, but yes, they had knowledge of things that the public did not, that Roger Stone did. Does that not support the interpretation? Is that not evidence against the hypothesis that it was just a prank? quote:So to summarize your arguments you think Q must be some kind of sophisticated and centralized op because 1) it was consistent, 2) it was actually really sloppy and 3) it was really effective even though you don't think it should have been. That's it. That's the sum total of your argument. That is apparently the basis on which you justify saying later in the thread that your hypothesis is at least as plausible as any other. Are you disputing any of that, or are you saying that in light of those 3 things, it is still more likely to not have been an agency than to be one? It's not just me who thinks it shouldn't have been this effective, the thread is littered with people aghast at the impact something so stupid has had. quote:3) Is just a long list of hyper links to articles and tweets with no actual commentary from yourself. No, dropping off random pieces of writing from other people that are about a dog's breakfast of different and semi-related topics is not in any way commensurate with you "evidence that your interpretation is more plausible than the alternatives". The article in question there is from Travis View who is pretty much the primary authority when it comes to covering Q, and what I am saying is that the hypothesis I am proposing is basically the only thing which is consistent with all of the evidence he presents for the different theories in that piece. If you have a hypothesis you think is consistent with all the facts he presents, then I'd love to hear it. quote:This is literally getting things backwards. You don't just link together some events and then demand that everyone else prove to your satisfaction that your hypothesis is wrong. You, as the person making the claim, are obliged to demonstrate that there's really good reasons to believe your claims. The burden of proof is on you, and the more extraordinary the claims the stronger the evidence and reasoning backing up the claims should be. I presented evidence, proposed a hypothesis, and then outlined the arguments against the hypothesis. Are there arguments against it I am missing which don't boil down to those two? Let me ask this, what is an example of some evidence you would find worth considering? What could I post that would not make you say "well you've just posted "thing''? In light of the long history of political influence, why is the idea that is was agency so 'extraordinary'? If I had come in here and said that the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was in fact started by Russians, before the senate inquiry, what would you have said? Do you guys accept that Russia (and Stone and Jones and Assange) created that conspiracy, and have in fact performed "active measures" for a long time? Now, let's look at owlfanciers posts: quote:They might just also be someone with too much time on their hands and a following of crazy internet nerds. Note how there is not a single piece of evidence in there. Yet it has helped foster this environment which is actively hostile to investigating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
Nobody agreeing with you does not constitute an environment hostile to investigation. You make leaps of logic nobody else agrees with, and that seem to mimic the leaps of logic made by Qanon posters, in a thread full of people who enjoy making fun of Qanon-style leaps of logic. You refuse to alter your premise when faced with pushback, and you get furious and ratchet up the wild conjecture. I'm really not sure what you're after, people don't agree with the leaps you've made. Your evidence is not sufficient. Is it a possibility? Sure, absolutely, nobody has denied that. It's a possibility, just like the possibility that aliens are posting on 8chan in a master plan to destabilize the world before their invasion. It's absolutely a thing that could be occurring. However, it is very unlikely, and there's no real evidence to suggest that Roger Stone is masterminding all of Q any more than there's evidence that aliens are masterminding Q. If you're getting this upset that people think you're wrong and don't want to engage with your theories, I return to my earlier advice to go outside and take a breath of fresh air away from this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
I mean people have mostly been calling Bucky a crazy person and/or an idiot rear end in a top hat for suggesting this, I don't think framing it as a polite disagreement is entirely honest
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
WeedlordGoku69 posted:I mean people have mostly been calling Bucky a crazy person and/or an idiot rear end in a top hat for suggesting this, I don't think framing it as a polite disagreement is entirely honest Most people started off saying 'Hey bud you seem like you're going a little far with this, take a break'. This is the goons pissing in the well thing all over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
WeedlordGoku69 posted:I mean people have mostly been calling Bucky a crazy person and/or an idiot rear end in a top hat for suggesting this, I don't think framing it as a polite disagreement is entirely honest They are suggesting that because of the way Bucky us pushing this theory, not for holding it. It's 2020 and saying the Roger Stone or Cambridge Analytica created Qanon doesn't even move the crazy needle. Way weirder poo poo than that has come out already. Not something I put much stock in, but whatever sure maybe that's how it went down. But trying to link every detail into some grand conspiracy and vomiting a bunch of piss-poor medium articles and begging the question constantly with some "just askin questions" bullshit is exactly the same way people push Qanon level conspiracy theories in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
This can’t be good https://twitter.com/rothschildmd/status/1303916891254083584?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
Is there anyone whose career started on Oprah who hasn't fattened themselves on human misery?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 12:30
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Nobody agreeing with you does not constitute an environment hostile to investigation. Indeed! Nobody agreeing with me does not constitute an environment hostile to investigation. These posts do: quote:I don't think it particularly matters who "Q" is All I am suggesting is that there is an agency behind Q. Whether it's from the start or from shortly thereafter doesn't matter that much. There are 2 arguments offered to refute that: 1, it could have happened organically, which seems extremely unlikely, but is theoretically conceivable. The second, which a lot comes back to, is that what I'm proposing is a "conspiracy", and that "conspiracy" = Qanon = false. quote:conspiracy babble So let's unpack this a little. "Qanon" is based on the premise that democrats are satanic child sex trafickers, and Donald Trump is on a mission to take them down, while not saying anything about it. The suggestion that "Q is the work of an agency", is based on the premise that political influence is a Thing that exists, that it can involve fake internet accounts, and that this is something the "trump team" (however you want to define that) has done. Does the difference between those two premises require further explanation? One is a universe which is literally inconceivable, one is a universe which is literally the one that we currently live in. There is nothing wild or extraordinary about it the claim. It is more or less exactly what you would expect if you kept drawing a line from 100 years ago, through 2016, and on to now. Attacking the hypothesis by comparing it to Q-style conspiracy doesn't work. https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/65/ https://www.stratcomcoe.org/black-market-social-media-manipulation https://edwardsnowden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/joel-zamel-israeli-campaign-specialist-sought-by-governments-and-billionaires/ https://citizentruth.org/the-shadowy-world-of-information-warfare/ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/360-trump-project-rome/574d679d1ff58a30836c/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
I could totally buy some trump-aligned 'operatives' or whatever taking up the Q mantle after it moved to 8kun - at that point all of the craziest Q poo poo was already done, Q 'itself' turned into just a plain trump promotion poster instead of a crazy puzzle-suggesting 16D chess commenter, and 'Q' stopped being really relevant to the religion anyway. Before that I think the evidence squarely falls in the 'homegrown prank turned to unpredictable religion' side of things. I also think cynical republican types are starting to embrace it because, gently caress, what else are they going to do if they want to stay in power? They do the same thing with evangelicals and they did the same thing with the tea party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
Ughhhhh
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:I could totally buy some trump-aligned 'operatives' or whatever taking up the Q mantle after it moved to 8kun - at that point all of the craziest Q poo poo was already done, Q 'itself' turned into just a plain trump promotion poster instead of a crazy puzzle-suggesting 16D chess commenter, and 'Q' stopped being really relevant to the religion anyway. Trolls being far more successful than they expected, then useful idiots getting signal boosted by Trump&pals because he doesn't fact check and his pals don't care is how I see it. Not a plan just opportunists, idiots and people pushing the boundaries of public gullibility for giggles. During the recent Qanon savethechildren rallies I believe there was a Q drop saying the rallies were Q imposters and not the real deal. Which I assumed was the trolls getting panicky about how much real world interest they've generated and trying to walk it back a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Trolls being far more successful than they expected, then useful idiots getting signal boosted by Trump&pals because he doesn't fact check and his pals don't care is how I see it. Not a plan just opportunists, idiots and people pushing the boundaries of public gullibility for giggles. That totally fits too. And it's not really like it matters much. It's certainly not something to get up in arms about. I mean, for all of Bucky's bluster, even if all of their inferences were all true (which I strongly doubt), of the crimes this Administration has obviously committed, it would rank like around 36th or so in terms of importance and severity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:58
|
|