|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:bucky's argumentative style is a very common one you see in conspiracy circles, more like just leaving all the raw ingredients on the table and asking for people to simply expand their understanding of what a meal is. things like "heat" or "cooking" are just distractions from the larger point, right? is this a sign of brilliant insight, or a sign of a chef who cannot make something better out of the ingredients they have? look the meat’s all there, nothin but certified prime beef, why aren’t you eating, how can you claim my cooking is no good when you won’t even eat it
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:randomly bold phrases like Cabal of Rabbis and Large-Scale Public Infrastructure Projects throughout every single paragraph of a 20,000-word Medium post maybe its just me, but I dont think bold text is bold enough on dark mode. like maybe it should be a tiny bit bolder. light mode has bold stuff stand out even when fast scrolling pass walls of text. this typography issue is very important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
The conspiracy theories are coming from inside the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
hey bucky i randomly scrolled to a different part of your giant bad argumentquote:Scientists recommended that governments collectively take action to try and burn less fossil fuels, and maybe try and spill less of them while they’re at it too. To people like the Kochs and their conservative friends in the Fossil Fuel Industry, this was an unacceptable threat to their sacred profits. So, naturally, they used their vast resources to “persuade” the politicians to legislate in their favour. so the main problem with this is that it is very simplistic. you're basically framing Scientists here as the good guys, and Fossil Fuel Executives as the bad guys, and explaining the triumph of the bad guys as being because they simply are very rich and bribed politicians into compliance i can't point to anything specifically wrong here, because there isn't any substance to this little bit of the argument. it's just an assertion about who is objectively correct, and who is objectively incorrect, and an explanation for why the incorrect people prevailed despite being wrong. i can just generally indicate the entire argument here is overly simplistic and incorrect, built from faulty premises. do you really think that we can reduce the human extraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels in this way? were there any scientists who had a different perspective, or maybe the range of perspectives isn't captured in a simple do/don't dichotomy? did the politicians have to be bribed just once for one law that was banned or are you generally saying this is the dynamic at play or... my feeling here is that you want to have academic insights but you're simply not very good at it. you're emulating things that you've read and an academic style, but you're not really capable of putting substance into your words here. this is because you don't seem to be able to separate good arguments from bad ones, which is an important first step in self-reflection and self-correction that prevents you from writing complete gibberish. mark twain apocryphally said "writing is easy, just cross out the words that don't fit" and you just refuse to take this step, and it ruins your efforts here i'll even pull in more context quote:One of the founding members of the John Birch Society was an oil baron called Fred Koch. He made his fortune mining and refining fossil fuels, including for Hitler and Stalin. His sons, Charles and David (the now infamous Koch Brothers), followed him into the family business — selling as much oil and coal and gas as they possibly could, and manipulating the public into thinking that any attempts to regulate them were part of a dastardly “Globalist Agenda”. so you're not even talking about the role of the fossil fuel industry in the mid 20th century as it relates to the american let alone global economy - which was critically important as it turns out! like fossil fuels are still so vitally important to our entire mode of existence that it generates tremendous amounts of political turmoil to consider maybe using less of them. you're simplifying this entire topic down to a few points that relate to conspiracy theories, bribes, and protecting corporate profits. this is not nearly enough to be a credible argument - you're simply replicating the rhetorical beats of newspaper comment sections and ill-informed online polemics it seems very much here that you believe the People would just collectively Rise Up and stop using fossil fuels, because they are Bad and Polluting, if simply it weren't for these specific Evil People who use Bribes to Corrupt the essential Flow Of Information and disrupting the natural order because of their Evil Tricks. and the entire essay is like this, it's all just weirdly assembled concepts with little relation to each other. you hide behind the fact that nobody can digest this mass as proof that the people who critique you simply aren't trying hard enough - entirely disregarding your own complicity in creating such an unapproachable mess to begin with i promise you i have tried multiple times to make any kind of sense of this thing and it just doesn't make sense. and i'm a person who reads arguments for fun, as a hobby! i am very confident in my achievements and understanding of the world n relation to weird arguments base din history. and i can say with a high degree of certainty that your argument is simply bad from top to bottom because you don't know what you're doing. i would like to give you some kind of criticism that might help you do better in the future, but i think that you aren't capable of the self reflection necessary to improve. i urge you to simply stop doing this because at this point you're causing yourself emotional distress by trying to force people to accept this unacceptable argument Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Mar 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
i realized i was perhaps being unfair by only looking at the lit review part of your essay, so i scrolled down even more. i closed my eyes and scrolled down thirty times and just got to the bit where you start explaining that people use bots online, you hadn't even started talking about Q yet this is an absolute junkyard of a thesis and i think in that focusing on overall word count you're missing the forest for the trees - you think that everything needs to be explained and so you jam in every argument you can think of. this only works because there are many arguments, much better ones, which you cannot think of, so there's a natural limit even to your own tremendous verbosity. but you don't need to make your arguments better by having less words, just need to have a lower number of bad arguments and if you were really capable of this then this essay wouldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Hey Bucky, Ron Watkins is Q. I saw it on TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Guys, he's never going to get it. I remember briefly arguing about this w him three drat years ago. Let him go. Also, seek help Bucky, or at least seek a proofreader.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Guys, he's never going to get it. I remember briefly arguing about this w him three drat years ago. Let him go. Also, seek help Bucky, or at least seek a proofreader. i also remember just scrolling through this thing years ago with a mixed sense of pity and awe even if bucky doesn't stop writing long bad arguments - many, many people do this without problems - maybe we can get him to stop throwing himself on his posting sword
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Guys, he's never going to get it. I remember briefly arguing about this w him three drat years ago. Let him go. Also, seek help Bucky, or at least seek a proofreader. No I can fix him
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
More importantly, why is this supposedly huge, revelatory insight into Q and the Qanon phenomenon itself - something which we are told we all must pay attention to, and that things are discovered here that have never been brought to light - why is this being posted here? Why isn't this being sent to Mother Jones or the SPLC or The Atlantic? The most charitable reason I could think someone would do such a thing is because they wanted to give it to a small group so they could criticize it in an effort to improve the thing before sending it to the New York Times, but Bucky isn't one to accept criticism. Nor are they one to stop posting in a thread that they are threadbanned from. I just think Bucky wants attention, maybe a pat on the back? Perhaps an adoring crowd that will sit crosslegged and smile as they whisper their divined truths into our ears. Bucky is just another QAnon casualty turned self-promoter, someone who 'sees the whole picture' and desperately wants us to validate their inane musings. Enough already. ashpanash fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Mar 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
The question of who started QAnon is ultimately, at this point, trivia. The movement/cult has legs and is its own thing now. There is very little, if any, meaningful use that the knowledge can come from knowing that it was founded by a random shitposting anon, or Ron Watkins, or a Russian government agent, or a time traveling Donald Trump from the 37th century where Apocalypse rules the Marvel universe. The cult has grown past its founder, assuming it ever had a singular one. Plus, again, the real answer as to its founder is that you have to go back hundreds of years. Again, I don't agree with everything Prester Jane said, but I think most would be hard pressed to disagree that at least in the case of QAnon and America, it does seem to be the latest iteration of a particular script that has popped up again and again since before we were a nation. Like I said in the post that gave this thread its subtitle; the only two real innovations of QAnon that differentiate it from its predecessors are the use of Trump as a messiah figure to replace or stand alongside Christ, and the slacktivist nature where it lacks a distinct call to action. I suppose, in retrospect, a third one might be a more explicit integration of blood libel, given ~Soros~ and adrenochrome, and I don't recall if the Satanic Panic had Soros-mongering plus its tales of human sacrifice were more generalized Satanic rites. But yeah. If you want to find the origins of QAnon you need to trace a sickness that was brought to our shores by the Puritans. QAnon is just the latest - and given the prospects of the future of our nation and our species, likely final - strain of the disease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
There's always been conspiracy bullshit and there have always been people who are willing to prop up a stratified society even when it's against their best interest. Humans are really, really good at pattern finding, even when there aren't patterns to be found. Humans are also really, really prone to forming tribes and in-groups. It might very well be getting significantly worse due to social media making it super easy to find like-minded people and silo oneself away from reality, but the general arc isn't anything especially novel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I suppose, in retrospect, a third one might be a more explicit integration of blood libel, given ~Soros~ and adrenochrome, and I don't recall if the Satanic Panic had Soros-mongering plus its tales of human sacrifice were more generalized Satanic rites.  The Behind the Bastards podcast recently did a six parter on how the Bavarian Illuminati (the book club in Germany) led to a bunch of paranoid nonsense in the newly free United States and where that went from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
In short, it's nearly impossible to explain the Q cult to people without sounding just as crazy as someone in it, because it's completely loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
I read a couple paragraphs of that linked blog post and the writing is so dogshit that I couldn't continue. Frankly seems as unhinged as the q-anon poo poo itself. It's actually kind of impressive though, to be honest, I've rarely read something that actually captures the vibe of talking to some stoned dude who is super into conspiracy theories, but that piece nails the vibe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Bucky does what I feel like a lot of extremely online libs/leftists have been doing since 2016. Namely to try desperately to find the "Final boss" of American conservatism that we can just unmask once and for all and then we can all be friends again. Sometimes it's Putin, sometimes it's the Koch brothers, Murdoch, sometimes they just make poo poo up. Since political movements are many-headed creatures, every attempt to find the singular person pulling the levers ultimately devolves into finger pointing and "OR HAVE THEY GOTTEN TO YOU TOO?  " conspiratorial nonsense
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Bucky does what I feel like a lot of extremely online libs/leftists have been doing since 2016. Namely to try desperately to find the "Final boss" of American conservatism that we can just unmask once and for all and then we can all be friends again. Sometimes it's Putin, sometimes it's the Koch brothers, Murdoch, sometimes they just make poo poo up. I feel like if this was more common there would be more engagement with his nonsense because "extremely online libs/leftists" is 95% of this forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i also remember just scrolling through this thing years ago with a mixed sense of pity and awe Bucky delivering his Medium article to the SomethingAwful Q-Anon thread and getting angry that everyone is laughing at him has the same vibes as Mishimas address to the Japanese military.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 12:07
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Hi Bucky, it's not that people think you are wrong or your writing is factually incorrect I think Bucky is wrong and his writing is factually incorrect. Okay, no, not exactly. I'm not saying he's definitively, objectively wrong because he could be right. Like, it's entirely possible that everything he says in his essay is true. I just don't think it can actually be proven, and in fact the little bit I read supported this. It is just a lot of "This seems like it could be what happened, therefore it is!" For example: quote:The political utility of a forum full of internet-savvy outcasts, with time on their hands and an axe to grind, on a website where you can anonymously drop anything you want, was well known to bastards like “World of Warcraft” gold-farmer Steve Bannon, and he actively and openly began using it as a recruiting ground for his Alt-Right Revolution. Bucky literally cannot prove Steve Bannon went "Today I will use 4chan to recruit people for the Alt-Right Revolution." He cannot prove Steve Bannon ever posted on 4chan. He cannot prove Steve Bannon paid people to post on 4chan. He cannot prove Steve Bannon asked people who really liked him to post on 4chan. None of this poo poo is provable unless Bucky has a videotape of Steve Bannon in a room talking to someone saying "I am going to use 4chan to make people pro Trump, and I am going to have someone pretend to be an FBI agent there to do it." So you get a lot of "Well FBIanon did a lot of things that Steve Bannon's book said would be good ways to spread propaganda!" and "This person seems way too dedicated to be a random shitposter!" These aren't proof. These are conjecture, these are assumptions, these are attempts to desperately force pieces to fit into a puzzle. And again, I'm not even saying Bucky is necessarily wrong, because I obviously can't prove that FBIanon was a random shitposter, but it's not as if Bucky has presented an incredible smoking gun that people are just too stubborn to admit is clearly the obvious truth. He's just saying "Well, this is too unlikely to be coincidence!" which again, is not evidence. Nor is it "statistics" as he tried to claim, because sometimes things are in fact just coincidental. And this ties into the whole "If you think something is factually inaccurate prove me wrong!" because almost the entirety of the piece is unfalsifiable. I can't prove Steve Bannon didn't pay a guy to post as FBIanon. And since I can't prove that didn't happen, Bucky's viewpoint is "Aha, since you can't prove that, then I must be right!" Well, loving no. That's not how that works. That's a nonsense argument. Uglycat posted:In practice, handwaving the qanon poo poo as a 4chan prank just encourages naive lurkers to dive into the rabbit hole. Bucky's narrative is an alternate, competing rabbit hole that inoculates any earnest naive researcher from falling down the fascist one. Sorry but "This explanation for events could be problematic so we should accept this alternate one even if it isn't true because it would be better for society" is a lovely defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
People can have aligned interests that makes it seem like a conspiracy to people. In economic/business though there's this idea monopolistic competition, if you have 2 or 3 companies, or even 4 or 5 in a given market, they frequently will do things like compete on features rather than price. Look at Apple/Android/Microsoft? Phones, they aren't all trying to undercut each other to offer the best price, the prices keep going up. Instead they offer more powerful phones more features (okay less with apple) but anyway. In theory Q could have a first cause it could even have been deliberately started, but everytime we've circled this drain it's clear that there were multiple attempts to create some kind of ARG or gain traction with an idea of leaks, FBI-Anon preceded Q-Anon. It may have been done deliberately by a politician or at the behest of a bad actor or maybe not. I've never understood, in all his repeat postings, why it even matters at this point. What changes if we found out, somehow (impossibly) that Steve Bannon was the progenitor of Q Anon, or Palantir, or the Mossad, or the CIA, or George Soros, or anyone? It's certainly not under their control at this point. I don't think that anyone is arguing that someone like that wouldn't try something like Q-Anon, if they thought it up and thought it was useful. So, even if we believed Bucky's unreadable, repeatedly posted, terribly written screeds, why does it matter, and no, there is not way I'm reading that whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
Ultimately it’s the same temptation that lures the believer of all conspiracy theories: to make the world make sense by identifying an enemy who is responsible for everything that’s gone wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Hi Bucky, it's not that people think you are wrong or your writing is factually incorrect, it's that nobody wants to read a rambling 20k word blog post. I appreciate that Fritz thanks, but clearly some people do think it's wrong, and there is something to debate and/or discuss. Whether pizzagate was an accident, or a new form of deliberate propaganda operation, matters. It changed the world. Your house burning down because of a blown fuse is a very different situation to someone setting fire to it, and requires a different response. And even if you want to accept the idea that it doesn't matter, the identity of the people who started Q is obviously relevant to this thread. My earlier articles did not have all the detail. I served and respected the thread ban for two years while I figured it all out, and now we have the complete story. I'm not derailing any conversation, and I'm not insisting anyone read it (unless they want to call it bullshit of course), or debate me. I am simply offering it, once, to anyone interested, which plenty of people in other places are. Surely that is a choice they should be able to make for themselves. It's an explanation of how and why so many people came to be living in alternative realities. That's all. It's simply the chronicle of events that led to this point. Some of which is common knowledge, some of which is not. It answers the question of "Why are all these hippy spiritual ladies convinced that all Trump's political enemies are evil pedophiles, and why do they think he's going to lead them to 5th dimensional galactic ascension? And why do they think Climate Change is a communist hoax and Klaus Scwab wants them to eat bugs and the NWO is going to de-populate the world?" Q is part of that of course, but there is a lot more going on too. It's not complete, because literally nothing ever is, but it is as comprehensive as 22,000 words can be. You're right that that is a ridiculous word count of course, so in a few sentences, the new info is: Q was born when Jack heard Manny's presentation at Defcon. Jack was part of MAGA3X, the Thiel-backed memetic warfare operation that almost certainly did pizzagate, and Manny was part of Cicada 3301, the internet puzzle that Thomas Schoenberger had hijacked. Manny and Thomas were both working with Robert David Steele, who had worked with Steve Pieczenic and the VIPS, then Thomas' "special friend" Lisa Clapier comes along and uses it as part of her new-age I AM Theosophical bullshit crusade too. Who those people are and how their paths came to cross is a long story, and all the supporting information for that is in there. But not only has none of that really been reported, "Q Watching" journalists are still writing books and going on podcasts like QAA, Jared Holt, and Knowledge Fight, telling people that these names had nothing to do with it, and that anyone who looks into it or mentions these names is delusional. And unlike mine, that thesis is built on an actual demonstrable falsehood. Which is explained clearly in the article. They appear to have been misled. I went to Florida and talked to strippers. There is a bubble. I cut the big one by more than half, by slashing out the background and getting straight to the point, which you can find here if you like. To respond to some people who have taken the time to engage: DarklyDreaming posted:Bucky does what I feel like a lot of extremely online libs/leftists have been doing since 2016. Namely to try desperately to find the "Final boss" of American conservatism that we can just unmask once and for all and then we can all be friends again. Sometimes it's Putin, sometimes it's the Koch brothers, Murdoch, sometimes they just make poo poo up. Since political movements are many-headed creatures, every attempt to find the singular person pulling the levers ultimately devolves into conspiratorial nonsense In fact I literally and explicitly do the exact opposite: "We’re not “taking comfort” in a single identifiable villain, we’re documenting the chaotic mess that is reality". It's honestly amazing how consistently you guys just conjure up these phantoms to argue against. Twelve by Pies posted:I think Bucky is wrong and his writing is factually incorrect. my dude  But even without that quote, you seem to underestimate the man. He has an excellent grasp of culture and how to manipulate it. That includes using every platform available, and that includes 4Chan. quote:So you get a lot of "Well FBIanon did a lot of things that Steve Bannon's book said would be good ways to spread propaganda!" and "This person seems way too dedicated to be a random shitposter!" These aren't proof. These are conjecture, these are assumptions, these are attempts to desperately force pieces to fit into a puzzle. [...] it's not as if Bucky has presented an incredible smoking gun that people are just too stubborn to admit is clearly the obvious truth. He's just saying "Well, this is too unlikely to be coincidence!" which again, is not evidence. Nor is it "statistics" as he tried to claim, because sometimes things are in fact just coincidental. Imagine you're watching someone guessing dice rolls. Getting it right once isn't particularly remarkable. Twice even. Three times might give you pause, but could still pass. But if they keep getting it right, on every roll, it's fair to assume something is up. You can't point to a single one of the guesses as "proof". But you'd be unwise to bet against them. FBIanon is using the exact same language as Bannon's book, with the same dedication, with the same skills, towards the same goal, and the same knowledge of the leaks, on the website he is known to have weaponised. After Zamel got $2 million in dark money for an influence operation, after Prince arranged a meeting in Trump Tower, and Prince Flynn and Posobiec were all leading the charge out the gate. On their own, they’re not proof, no, just like none of those guesses are a smoking gun. But they are not on their own. At which point the math starts to stack up. Given the resume of these ratfuckers, I don't see how the idea of them being behind it is even controversial, let alone worth eliciting the reaction we see here. And as we get to Q, some of the guesses could in fact arguably be called proof. quote:I can't prove Steve Bannon didn't pay a guy to post as FBIanon. And since I can't prove that didn't happen, Bucky's viewpoint is "Aha, since you can't prove that, then I must be right!" Well, loving no. That's not how that works. That's a nonsense argument. No, that's not my viewpoint. I am simply looking at the evidence, and deciding which explanation is more likely. Why do you think that all of the above is more consistent with it being an unrelated troll? You've offered nothing to support this claim. And it is a claim, just as mine is. Why is that even your start point, let alone your end point? It's doing the work of a propaganda campaign, why would you think it isn't a propaganda campaign? You think these fuddie-duddies aren't cool enough to know about 4Chan? To be clear, I'm not even saying it had to be Bannon. Whether it was Stone, or Posobiec, or Zammel, or a Psy-Group intern, I don't loving know, and I do appreciate you throwing the net wide there. The point is it was someone from that camp. Is that what you guys are calling a “conspiracy”? Every political campaign's billboard or radio spot is a "conspiracy". This is just a new form of the craft. The most remarkable thing about it is that it has gone undetected for so long. Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:Hey Bucky, Ron Watkins is Q. I saw it on TV. He might be now, sure. But he definitely wasn’t for the first month. ashpanash posted:I just think Bucky wants I'd like to see if there are any holes, sure, but mostly just want to see if you have the capacity to post in good faith, and I think I have the answer, thank you. You are being extremely weird and rude to someone who is simply offering you information about a subject you have some interest in. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:so you're not even talking about the role of the fossil fuel industry in the mid 20th century as it relates to the american let alone global economy Correct! Because I am talking about the history of conspiracies, and how they have been used for anti-progressive political purposes, and this is a part of that. A pretty big part in fact! Your inability to grasp this is fascinating. If you want to write your own article where you fellate fossil fuels, go for it. Good work if you can get it. quote:i can't point to anything specifically wrong here, because there isn't any substance to this little bit of the argument. Correct! Because it is not an argument. It's just history. I think this might explain a lot of your confusion. You keep saying you're looking for an "argument", when history isn't necessarily about that. It's just what happened. Sometimes one thing leads to another, sometimes one thing comes in from somewhere else. Like a river basin. We're standing at the mouth and following the streams back. You're so desperate to write this off for some reason, that you're getting tripped up cos you can't find anything wrong. You did it with the McCarthy thing as well - it's not "jammed in", it's right where it needs to be to explain the anti-progressivism we see in the waters before us. quote:it seems very much here that you believe the People would just collectively Rise Up and stop using fossil fuels, because they are Bad and Polluting, if simply it weren't for these specific Evil People who use Bribes to Corrupt the essential Flow Of Information and disrupting the natural order because of their Evil Tricks. and the entire essay is like this, Yes, but also no. I do belive that, because even your sarcastic re-write is almost entirely accurate. It's very well documented, and it's very interesting that you would try and dispute that and/or its effect. If you really are unaware of this then I direct you to Robert Evans and the "How Exxon, Chevron and their buddies killed the world" episode of Behind the Bastards as a starting point to learn more about how and why these specific Evil People used these Evil Tricks. But that's not what I'm actually saying there. What I am saying, quite clearly, is that fossil fuel industry used conspiracy theories, among other things, to protect their profits. That's it. pseudanonymous posted:I've never understood, in all his repeat postings, why it even matters at this point. That's a seperate question, and it seems pretty clear that as it becomes increasingly apparent that I'm not crazy and this isn't actually wrong, you're setting up to try and move the goalposts of the conversation. But sure, as long as we're clear that it's a different topic, we can have that discussion too if you like. "Academic curiosity" is all the answer you need here. If you're not interested, that's fine, you can move on with your day. It's just a bit of historical trivia for those who like to know how things happened. If it doesn't matter, then why make such a big song and dance about it? You've followed the thread for nearly 500 pages, reading nearly 20,000 posts, and made nearly 400 yourself, and seemed awfully keen to write this off, so this is a strange stance to take. Mike Rothschild does this too. He's made a big point to poo poo on people who look into it, and said many times that it "doesn't matter". But he's also said many times that it WASN'T any of the people listed above, and that anyone who says it is should be ridiculed. Why say that if it doesn't matter? Cos it sounds like it does matter, and it's important to him that people not think it was them. And he's wrong. As are Dale, Will, Julian, Travis, Sarah, etc. They are misleading people, and I don't think journalists should do that. So, what changes, is that they would stop. People don’t seem to mind when Cullen Hoback and Jake Hanrahan spend 6+ hours asking the question, as long as they listen to Fred and come away with “The Watkins / Paul Furber / Random Troll.” It’s only when these names come up that people start getting real defensive and saying it doesn't matter all of a sudden. I think that having an accurate understanding of this thing which has completely transformed the political landscape does matter. People are murdering their families. A father shot his children with a speargun because of this poo poo. To say that it "doesn't matter" what drove him to that point is frankly obscene. We can and should look at the "pull factors" that led them to belive it, and we can and should look at the "push factors" of who weaponised it all and how. They're not mutually exclusive. Look, I know I can piss people off. I'm sorry. I think I've done a pretty good job of remaining civil in the face of overwhelming hostility, but I have a habit of loving things up, so I can accept responsibility for that. But I'm not wrong here. Don’t let your perception of me put you off it. There is a lot of weirdness going on. The world is drowning in disinformation, we're in uncharted waters, and I think our best way forward is to be honest, fair, and kind. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Apr 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
Wb bucky
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 07:24
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Correct! Because it is not an argument. It's just history. I think this might explain a lot of your confusion. You keep saying you're looking for an "argument", when history isn't necessarily about that. It's just what happened. Sometimes one thing leads to another, sometimes one thing comes in from somewhere else. Like a river basin. when you choose to bring these things up in your writing, it becomes part of your argument. saying "it's not an argument, it's just facts" is refusing to take ownership of your own opinion, instead positioning it as just essential, unquestionable truth. this is disappointing Bucky Fullminster posted:It's very well documented, and it's very interesting that you would try and dispute that and/or its effect. If you really are unaware of this then I direct you to Robert Evans and the "How Exxon, Chevron and their buddies killed the world" episode of Behind the Bastards as a starting point to learn more about how and why these specific Evil People used these Evil Tricks. stop learning about the world through podcasts. read a book
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Bucky, I honestly think you have a couple of good points here. Jack “Pissman” Posobiec and Steve Bannon being in on the ground floor of this would surprise no one. I don’t agree with some of your other suppositions, but that’s my opinion. I think some of the other stuff sounds kind of insane, but again, that’s my opinion. It’s been your style of presentation combined with your stubbornness that keeps you getting probed. I have no idea why you keep coming back here and getting banned and probed and still keep coming back to post term paper-length poo poo on this. Why are you doing this on SA, on all places? It has gotten kind of sad, and honestly while your heart is in the right place, IMO it’s time to take a step back from all of this poo poo. It’s not healthy. It’s time to take care of you and withdraw from all this poo poo for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 09:07
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:
It’s like Prester Jane syndrome needs a name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 09:16
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:It’s like Prester Jane syndrome needs a name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 11:19
|
|
cowboy
|
Sorry about your mental illness Bucky. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:
I disagree with this on principle, I don't think finding out who did it will change anything. I also don't think knowledge is only valuable if it changes things. Like it or not Q was a historical phenomenon and there is insight to be gleaned from how it was started and what actually happened there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:My earlier articles The average article word count is between 1500 and 3000 words. Your novel is seven times longer than the long end of average. Eta: Bucky Fullminster posted:as it becomes increasingly apparent that I'm not crazy and this isn't actually wrong, When is this part going to start happening Karma Comedian fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Apr 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
Ten minutes, Bucky. That's the most you can ask for. Break your Medium post into four parts, get someone to edit it down, or ideally both. Alternatively, just post in C-SPAM, there's the Epstein/general conspiracy theories thread that'd tear you apart/welcome you with open arms. e: the thread in pmf is also a good idea i believe Relevant Tangent fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Apr 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I disagree with this on principle, I don't think finding out who did it will change anything. I also don't think knowledge is only valuable if it changes things. Like it or not Q was a historical phenomenon and there is insight to be gleaned from how it was started and what actually happened there. I do agree with you that there is some value in knowing who had a hand in kicking off the Q phenomenon, but it's important to keep in perspective that we might not be able to find a definitive answer to that question, and even if we were, it wouldn't provide any kind of resolution to the ongoing problem that is the contemporary far right's fascination with this type of conspiracy theorizing. You and most other posters here have that perspective, but Bucky quite clearly does not. Also, when it comes to that particular question of who was the first Q poster: if Bucky has any insight to offer on that topic, he has done an absolutely atrocious job of communicating that information or establishing why it is important. If that was the point of Bucky's interminably long Medium post, that post is a complete and total failure as a piece of writing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Because I am talking about the history of conspiracies, and how they have been used for anti-progressive political purposes, and this is a part of that. Did you know, conspiracy theories have been used for pro-progressive (and anti-conservative) political purposes too? It's true! Not only did I do the kind of "research" you did and heard it on a podcast and in a youtube video, I even read about it in books! Your whole screed sure seems like you are trying to find a unified conspiracy theory that explains why the world isn't a utopia. You've been told this many times, but it seems you've never once taken it to heart when people tell you that your personal theory, and indeed your writing style and way of presenting and arguing your case, looks and sounds a lot like QAnon. You're basically everything we make fun of in this thread, and you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
bucky, you claiming the mantle of being a simple, dispassionate observer who merely collects evidence and follows the trail isn't working for you. it's clear this is some kind of emotional defense mechanism because then people aren't arguing with you, they are arguing with reality itself, because you are the one who can best interpret reality and everyone who criticizes you just cannot accept reality as it is how convincing do you think you come off as the mere Reality Noticer when you are repeatedly getting criticized and punished for posting your blog? like what am i supposed to think about your ability to discern information from the world around you when you keep beating your head against a wall for no clear reason other than a strong desire to prove that you were right all along? i'll be honest, even if it agreed somewhat with your writings, i would still find this behavior questionable because it demonstrates that you're emotionally invested in the truth of this, which undermines some of your perception of yourself as just following the obvious clues to the obvious conclusion. maybe... you're not that good at this? is that a more likely possibility than multiple internet strangers all coincidentally having the same negative reaction to your work for their own defective reasons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:my dude This quote is Bannon talking about hiring Milo to work as a tech writer for Breitbart. It literally is not proof that Steve Bannon paid someone to post as FBIanon on 4chan. Again, you are going "Well this seems like something he would do!" which is an assumption that may not be correct! You cannot prove Steve Bannon, or Stone, or Posobiec, ever did this. You can't. Unless you have some secret videotape or access to their emails which you do not appear to have. That's my point. And that's why I said this whole thing is nonsense. Because your claims can't be falsified, and because they can't you just go "Welp, I must be right!" Or more accurately you're going "So that must be reality!" quote:But even without that quote, you seem to underestimate the man. He has an excellent grasp of culture and how to manipulate it. That includes using every platform available, and that includes 4Chan. I'm not underestimating him. I never said "Bannon is too dumb to do this!" or "Bannon couldn't possibly know 4chan exists!" I just said you can't prove he posted (or that he asked/paid someone else to post) on 4chan. You can say "Oh but he knows how to use technology to make people pro Trump!" which isn't in dispute. He's on record saying that. It still isn't proof he had any hand in creating FBIanon. Does it sound like something he might do? Yeah, maybe. But this isn't proof that it was him. quote:Imagine you're watching someone guessing dice rolls. Getting it right once isn't particularly remarkable. Twice even. Three times might give you pause, but could still pass. But if they keep getting it right, on every roll, it's fair to assume something is up. You can't point to a single one of the guesses as "proof". But you'd be unwise to bet against them. This isn't proof that they're psychic, nor is it proof they have anything to do with the results. The guy rolling the dice could have told him "Hey, I brought some loaded dice." The guesser never said "Hey you should use loaded dice" nor did he load the dice themselves, he just has knowledge that they are loaded. Meanwhile you're going "The guesser obviously can see the future, there's no other explanation!" So I'm going to use a very, very frivolous example here. Who Shot Mr. Burns? Near the end of the second episode, the cops are sure it is Homer. Let's look at the evidence. Homer yells " Oh, you're a dead man, Burns. Oh, you're dead! You're dead, Burns!" as he's dragged out of Mr. Burns office. The police examine Burns' suit and find Simpson DNA on it. Mr. Burns yells "Homer Simpson!" when he wakes up. There is a gun in Homer's car, with Homer's fingerprints all over it, with bullets that match the one that was recovered from Burns' body. Boy it sure seems like Homer shot Mr. Burns! All the evidence lines up! Except nope. The baby did it. Again, this is extremely frivolous. It was purposely written to be intentionally misleading. But since you're already using a theoretical example of "Guy who guesses multiple dice rolls correctly" as proof you're right, I feel it's totally valid for me to use "Popular TV show plot" as proof I'm right. Just because everything seems to line up perfectly, sometimes it really is just all a wacky coincidence and you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
If part of your "evidence" is a lovely photoshop with a quote, then I feel pretty safe writing you off from there on out. Even ignoring that the quote doesn't help you. You had the option of actually giving the quote with its context in the form of a source someone could check, and you had the option that made you seem like a crazy great aunt on facebook : you chose the wrong option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Honestly the only reason I had context for the quote was I googled to find out if it actually was a real quote or if it was an "Abraham Lincoln says you can't trust quotes on the internet" situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
yes well you may have poked a small hole into one tiny part of the overall work but since you cannot disprove the entire thing tip to tail in one go then clearly some of it must be true, and if some of it is true then it could logically follow that all of it is true. i'm just stating facts here
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
As a lurker who drops in now and then to giggle at the crazy people, I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am at the content of the last 150 posts in this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 22:37
|
|
