And how many men who are unbeknownst to you alone and completely struggling in the dating market have you seen but are conviently ignored for a couple flashy examples that stuck out in your mind?
> At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before [emphasis mine].
Notice how only 1 post out of thousands by the so called Q we're shown in the making this article?
Notice how immediately they point to one case of violence which was denounced by Q. Seems like an attempt to emotionally connect Q with a single nutjob.
Do you think it would be fair to write articles about everyone based on the actions of a single supporter with clear mental illness? Why the double standard?
If what Q is saying is so dangerous then why not actually show that material and debunk it directly?
Just like the podesta emails the content is always completely ignored because the people writing these articles don't want you to be informed here. Ask yourself why? What is their agenda here? Is it in your best interest?
Read the drops qmap.pub and think for yourself.
If you haven't read any of the drops how can anyone take your opinion seriously on something you know nothing about?
Was there a defining a moment that made you believe in it, if you do?
I'm not going read drops or maps, I'm not even sure what that means and don't plan to spend my weekend figuring that out, there's only so much time and we have to pick and choose ya know, so if you could expand, please do.
"If what Q is saying is so dangerous then why not actually show that material and debunk it directly?"
Probably because the "material" is generated faster than anyone could possibly analyze it, which is why there are so many variants of the conspiracy theory floating around and why more seem to appear with each passing day.
"think for yourself"
Sure, let's start with, "Does this seem realistic?" If not, let's try, "Is there extraordinary evidence for these extraordinary claims?" Thus far the answer is "no, not even close" and the entire thing looks like a desperate attempt on the part of Trump's supporters to deny the plainly obvious fact that the man is an inept moron with deep insecurities and no conscience.
(Edit: the first thing I saw on website you provided was an assertion that the DNC logo looks like the satanic baphomet symbol. I do not even see what can be properly debunked there -- it is an opinion and there is no actual conclusion to be drawn even if the logo looked kind of like baphomet. I could claim that Trump's left eye looks like the meta key on an old Lisp machine keyboard, and demand that you debunk my claim.)
Exactly. I'm am very sad to read the grandparent comment. It's not pleasant that anyone could be so misguided, and especially to see such lunacy on HN. It's not incumbent on anyone to continually engage with and point-by-point knock down Q: bullshit can be generated much faster than it can be fact checked (putting truth at a structural disadvantage), and engaging in this stupidity confers it legitimacy it doesn't deserve. I am despondent for humanity, that so many of us are so (1) easily confused (2) incapable of actually doing their own research (instead castigating people to "do their own research", which if they did in any reasonable way would show the absurdity of belief in Q) (3) related to 2, so commonly projecting their own flaws and insisting they are those of others. I hate being a misanthrope, but there's no way to be informed nowadays and not be deeply disappointed in our species.
We can only hope (as we always have) that our ability to evolve (our software first, hardware next) will stay just ahead of our ability and desire to destroy ourselves. I sure hope I didn’t make a huge mistake having two kids. But I hope that by raising them in a loving household they will be good people in the world to balance the bad.
I very much agree with your general hope, and I also worry about bringing children into this world, though I haven't yet.
I'm not as hopeful for technological solutions to societal ills, though -- it seems to me that most problems are matters of historic and current national/global philosophies (as instantiated by norms of personal action), ie the problem really just has to do with how we are as a species, and technology in and of itself can't breed the empathy and unity of purpose (for the progress of human knowledge and standard of life, the stewardship of our planet, the continual growth of our species' sphere of concern to hopefully come to recognize all of our universe for the real wonder and treasure that it is) as would be necessary for the real flourishing of our world. Of course, technology could be useful for this, provided it did in fact disseminate such ideas. But these ideas run counter to those most easily spread (hate, fear, etc) and so (as it stands) the infrastructure of the internet allows the latter to spread more easily than the former. I guess (after all this ramble) that I hope that technology in the future can be built with these goals of universal progress in mind, and that such ideas can spread to their users. But such a thing must be done intentionally, as otherwise technology often has the opposite effect.
> I'm am very sad to read the grandparent comment.
> I am despondent for humanity, that so many of us are so [..] (2) incapable of actually doing their own research (instead castigating people to "do their own research", which if they did in any reasonable way would show the absurdity of belief in Q)
These two statements are contradicting each other. You should be happy about that comment, because it has a link to the full content of Q's posts, allowing people to actually do their own research. And for that matter, is actually advocating for it!
"reading the drops" isn't the sum total of the "research" one would do to see Q for what it is, and anyways, their content is not something I'm unaware of. I don't even know why I'm dignifying this with a response, since it so clearly misinterprets my previous comment. What a morass, what a mess. I hope that the future is better for you.
"That same day, she shared a separate post suggesting that Michelle Obama is secretly a man. Someone responded with skepticism: “I am still not convinced. She shows and acts evil, but a man?” Shock’s reply: “Research it.” There was a post claiming that Representative Adam Schiff had raped the body of a dead boy at the Chateau Marmont, in Los Angeles"
What research should I do here? So many "claims" from QAnon look exactly like this, and it looks like random garbage. There is nothing to "research" here because it is impossible to research all this BS. But apparently I am a "sheep" unless I prove Michelle Obama is a woman? Or any other insane claim they make up regularly every day?
Sorry, no, QAnon is garbage. No need to "research it" to know that.
I read the article and it examines multiple QAnon claims made over time. I have also seen lots of QAnon claims not on this article and it seems the "thousands" of posts from supporters of QAnon is just mass-generated garbage with no truth. Made out of thin air.
I am thinking for myself, and when I see QAnon, I don't see a group that is doing any thinking at all. The "drops" you talk about are meaningless garbage.
That's not the evidence you think it is. In sports analogies That would be the equivalent of brian windhorst tweeting out something and then you saying that it came "Directly from LeBron James".
People are not responsible for what their ignorant fans say.
Is "QAnon" even a person? I am under the impression that is a moniker that has likely been used by numerous unrelated people.
I know believers of this stuff think "QAnon" is a person, but I've not seen any evidence that leads me to believe this is the case and quite a bit of conjecture / circumstantial evidence that suggests at one point the name was being used by a cabal of imageboard moderators.
There was an account on 8chan which would sign posts with "Q" and a unique hash which could be used to prove the identity of a particular person or group posting. Last I looked this account/hash hadn't been heard from in some time though.
No that's not an equivalent. QAnon is not a person in the same way LeBron James is a person. Is there a name for this logically fallacy where someone compares two wildly different scenarios thinking it's somehow related?
If none of us knows the identity of "Q" then anyone can pretend to be their prophet and there is no way to confirm nor disconfirm. This is why I describe QAnon as a LARP -- it's easy for the average person to participate without knowing any rules (because there are none).
Don't you think if your going to attempt to argue against someone you should argue against what they actually said?
If so then why the double standard with Q there are dumb fans who post stupidity for literally everything. You would think people would actually quote the source (always ignored) instead of using a clear falacy of using ones followers to define them.
> People are not responsible for what their ignorant fans say.
This is what I'm arguing against. When it comes to QAnon, you can't know the difference between QAnon, QAnon fans, and any rando who pretends to be either. It's a feature of the LARP.
To be fair, I think they both likely started on 4Chan, which has those same features.
In a way, it's a natural evolution of the "meme", which was originally a word coined by Dawkins to describe the gene of biological evolution equivalent in cultural evolution. Nobody owns a meme. Rarely can we prove who was actually the first to use a meme (KnowYourMeme attempts this, but occasionally can't definitively identify the creator). Memes keep their virility based on the collective LARP that all humans participate in (sometimes the meme goes away and other times it stays active).
That Chrissy Teigen was on the Epstein flight logs and involved in sexual depravity, despite being a minor at that time; that pictures Tom Hanks takes of random roadside detritus are secret signals to a worldwide network of Satanic pedophiles; that there is video of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin sexually abusing a child and cutting off her face; that Michelle Obama was secretly assigned male at birth and should be called "Michael"; and so on.
Also, just look in the replies of any regular person who attacks QAnon claims on Twitter and you will see responses accusing them of being a pedophile, a murderer, a Satanist, and claiming that they, their families, etc. will be imprisoned or executed.
I've been following "Q" out of curiosity since when it started posting. Not sure if it's a pied piper op, as Wikileaks said, or something else. However I've not seen any of the things you listed as examples of hateful content. You can search all the posts yourself. "Chrissy Teigen" and "Hanks" show no results. Clinton is mentioned but none of the "cutting off her face" stuff. Where did you get these ideas?
https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword
"QAnon" is the community of people who subscribe to the idea that "Q" is leading them to some hidden truth. I got these ideas by seeing thousands of people identifying as QAnon followers express every one of the ideas I listed above. You just have to look at any one of those famous people's tweets to see QAnon replies baselessly accusing them of horrible things. The codeword used for the supposed Clinton video in QAnon is "frazzledrip".
The nature of "Q", or at least the current person publishing under that guise (likely Jim and/or Ron Watkins), is that they rarely make any kind of concrete claims or predictions, but they've certainly made allusions to Moloch, Satan, cannibalism, etc. when referring to political figures. It's the responsibility of "bakers" in the community to take "Q"'s "crumbs" and come to conclusions. Certainly these conclusions have been widespread in the community for years and have not been spoken against by "Q".
People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.
What if Google and Twitter deside that those "alternatives" are hateful for disagreeing politically and stop linking them on their platforms making it extremely difficult/impossible to find them?
Sure, exactly like that. People who believe there’s a vast conspiracy of celebrities to drain “adrenochrome” from children to gain eternal life or whatever aren’t a protected class, after all.
Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class.
I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
> I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone.
If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”.
The businesses’ stated reason is certainly one piece of evidence that courts weigh, but it’s far from the only one. If you refuse me business based on what I’m wearing, but I can show you regular do business with people wearing the same thing, or I can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence that you knew I was homosexual and had made statements to the effect that you would refuse to serve homosexuals, courts aren’t going to just take you at your word.
It seems to me someone blocked on Twitter for alleged right- wing hate speech could easily demonstrate instances of left- wing hate speech which didn’t result in blocking on the same platform.
That would be analogous to the clothes example, right?
Your political beliefs aren’t a protected class wrt interactions with private entities under the Civil Rights Act, and there’s no other relevant right to not be blocked by a private individual or business if they don’t wish to hear or disseminate your speech, so yes, there’s nothing legally actionable there.
If I understood your point correctly, a company could get in trouble for refusing to service someone based on some stated reason (e.g. your clothes) if it can be shown that they do serve other people that match that given reason.
It seems to me that the situation with Twitter is the same, if it can be shown that they justify banning some people based on hate speech, while refusing to ban other people performing the same kind of speech.
They will only get in trouble if first they ban people of a protected class, and secondly it can be shown that their stated reason for banning was a lie covering their desire to actually ban people of a protected class or represents a bias against those members merely via statistical fact.
Merely being arbitrary in enforcement or inconsistent isn’t enough to automatically trigger government protection.
If you say that this isn’t fair, then I agree. However the class protections are pragmatic and serve to reduce social disruption. Like it or not, people are a lot less worked up over being discriminated against due to being democrats, than they are for being Catholics.
> If I understood your point correctly, a company could get in trouble for refusing to service someone based on some stated reason (e.g. your clothes) if it can be shown that they do serve other people that match that given reason.
Ah, no, I didn’t quite spell that out.
They can get in trouble if their stated reason for refusing service doesn’t line up with the way they treat other people who behave the same way, IF that disparity in behaviour can help build an argument that the preponderance of evidence suggests that their real reason for refusing service was related to your membership in a protected class. They’re free to behave inconsistently in general.[1]
So if Twitter says they banned 17k QAnon accounts for coordinated misinformation campaigns but for whatever reason you could show that a bunch of other misinfo networks they knew about weren’t banned, and all the QAnon accounts were also known to twitter to be Unitarians, and this was part of a pattern of behaviour towards Unitarian accounts, that might be legally actionable.
But if there’s no underlying, unifying element to these 17k accounts that’s protected, Twitter is free to ban them from their service even if they’re not very consistent about enforcing their TOS.
[1] Which isn’t to say that behaving inconsistently is smart, precisely because it can open you up to these kinds of arguments if your inconsistency starts to look like a pattern of behaviour towards a protected class.
I’ve found this link [1] though I have no idea if what they say is accurate. But they seem to claim companies actually do have to behave consistently in this regard:
[...] you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.
To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent.
[...] you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.
The missing piece of the puzzle is that in US law, there are some very specific groups of people who are carved out as having special protection (the general guiding philosophy is: it's not legal to discriminate against people for some innate qualities, including race or gender).
So the missing piece of the puzzle is: which of the protected groups would every member of QAnon fall under? There's no law against discriminating against people who believe the QAnon conspiracy and spread it.
But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
>But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no?
IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
It's a massive group of people LARPing about the most serious crimes anyone can be accused of and it focuses on new people nearly every day. No trials. Weak evidence. No way for the accused to face their accuser. It's as bad as the worst of "cancel culture".
It's more like a salem witch trial, started by little girls who don't really know what they're doing and who are trying to get a bunch of people murdered because, nothing else to do in 1700's Massachusetts.
