Right-Wing internet community QAnon spreading conspiracy theories on YouTube.

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
What answers has Q provided about the Las Vegas shooting?
This video (someone I've never watched before; searched Google for "qanon las vegas") seems to collect many of the "answers" that've been provided by QAnon regarding the Las Vegas shooting:


I put "answers" in quotes because it is a fair criticism to point out that these might not be correct answers at all, merely vague-enough statements to mislead or troll.
 

7echnicolor

Member
May 19, 2010
2,039
183
565
Manafort being found guilty and Cohen admitting to guilt pretty much blows the whole Q thing apart and it's fucking hilarious to see all these idiots tripping over themselves to try and pick up the pieces.

Someone post a link to the reddit thread of people who have destroyed their personal lives because of this. I had it but lost it but it was a hilarious read.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Alrighty, then is there anything that you think Q actually has gotten right?
You replied 4 minutes after I did the Googling for you and posted a 1-hour video. I'm not going to write out a lengthy explanation as to what I think Q got right or wrong when I've already provided you a better source for the conspiracies than I could type out.

But since you're interested in my opinion, I'll say this: I find it fascinating that Q tends to focus on very obscure things that aren't talked about as often in the media. QAnon spent a lot of time talking about the sealed inditements, Seth Rich's death, various WikiLeaks, the purge of the Saudi Arabian nobility, and the leaked Clinton-server emails. All five of these are things that the media pretty much refused to cover in any great detail (with the exception of the emails, which they'll talk about but only as a deflection/accusation, not any sort of reasonable investigation into the content).

Whether it's trolling or genuine conspiracy, QAnon at least knows enough to source out obscure factoids to give the appearance of conspiracy.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
You replied 4 minutes after I did the Googling for you and posted a 1-hour video. I'm not going to write out a lengthy explanation as to what I think Q got right or wrong when I've already provided you a better source for the conspiracies than I could type out.

But since you're interested in my opinion, I'll say this: I find it fascinating that Q tends to focus on very obscure things that aren't talked about as often in the media. QAnon spent a lot of time talking about the sealed inditements, Seth Rich's death, various WikiLeaks, the purge of the Saudi Arabian nobility, and the leaked Clinton-server emails. All five of these are things that the media pretty much refused to cover in any great detail (with the exception of the emails, which they'll talk about but only as a deflection/accusation, not any sort of reasonable investigation into the content).

Whether it's trolling or genuine conspiracy, QAnon at least knows enough to source out obscure factoids to give the appearance of conspiracy.
Dude, you yourself said the video might be bullshit. I'm not going to watch an hour of some dude sitting at his desk in the hope of finding a kernel of corn in a pile of shit when the guy who provides the video won't even vouch for it. You seem to think that Q may have something right. I'm asking what it is. You don't have to provide some long explanation. Just tell me one fact that Q has right that normies have wrong. Why shouldn't they just be dismissed as a bunch of loons and rubes?
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
480
1,345
USA
Your disdain for people who follow Q is obvious. I'm just pointing out there is a reason beyond "they just want to believe conspiracy theories, those nutjobs".
I'm not trying to hide my disdain for Q followers. I listed exactly which of their beliefs I'd consider "stupid" in that post. I don't see how Q benefits anyone, even the people following it. For all they know they are being trolled

My point here is that everything you are accusing the "media" of, as if mainstream news networks are operating in lockstep on all matters, is 100 times worse when you're information source is an anonymous leaker on 4chan. It's 100 steps in the wrong direction

Ah, so now it's a complex issue. Always funny how "it's complicated" when it implicates the political party that you personally like. It's not a conspiracy when it's true. Our media utterly failed the American public when it came to the 2016 elections, on so many fronts.
It's always been a complex issue, when have I said otherwise? And nothing in your post implicated any political party, so I'm not sure where you are getting anything partisan. Everybody with something to hide goes after whistle blowers; Republicans, Democrats, and corporations have all done it. And as much as we want to champion freedom, there are situations where going after a whistelblower may be right, hence my complex issue comment.

If you are implying I am anti whistleblower because I am anti "Q", I do not see how Q can be seen as a whistleblower. There's a difference between whistleblowing and making shit up to stir the pot

Demonstrably false. We do not all know how the government works because our government is not transparent. You can hardly point out where it is or isn't working properly when the main watchdogs (press corps) pick a side.
you are right, we do not have a completely transparent government. I agree that it would be great if it were more transparent, and support any efforts to do so.
My point is that we know which officials are elected and which ones aren't. I'm not sure what your initial statement was implying. My point is that if the officials should be elected, lets change it. Not sure why officials not being elected would be wrapped up in conspiracy theories, we know who is appointing them. If we don't like a judge, we blame the party who appointed said judge

It's funny how you say you "pity me" if I feel like the Government is trying to somehow control Facebook and then you say this...
Not funny at all:

- "If you're takeaway from the Zuckerberg hearing was that the government is somehow controlling Facebook, I pity you."
- "The hearing was a threat by the government to step in, and everything Facebook has done since is an attempt to remain independent."

These statements are not at odds. Facebook took the hearing as a warning that the Government might step in and start making decisions for them. Facebook is currently operating independently and does not want to lose that independence. You have not refuted my statement

Help me understand how that does not qualify as Gov't control? You said it yourself: the Gov't continues to threaten to step in and Facebook plays nice to avoid that happening. How is that not considered a form of control?
This is how media censorship works in the US. The media censors itself. The MPAA is controlled by the industry. The ESRB is controlled by the industry. They do this in part because they do not want the government stepping in and doing it for them, in part because the government can't. I agree with what you're saying at a macro level, but the idea that the government could step in and control *anything* is a problem that always exists for any industry. The Facebook hearing was a platform for the government to make it's grievances with Facebook known, much like the government may step in and scold a monopoly here and there. The ball is now in Facebook's court to act. If things continue as they have, Facebook runs the risk of the government slowly but surely stepping in

My point is that the government does not control Facebook currently and my point stands; if it did, there'd be no reason for a hearing

Are they? Because many do not support Trump. Don't forget that two of the biggest "conspiracies" in the past 20 years -- Catholic molestation and WMDs in Iraq -- targeted conservative institutions!
I never said they were choosing a particular side. My point is that anonymous conspiracy sources are even more capable of pushing political bias than mainstream media. This is evident via Q, which is unambiguously choosing a side. I would argue your examples are no longer good examples, as both have been proven true, but we can certainly find conspiracy theories against the right, the biggest being 9/11

My point is simply that turning to conspiracy theories because the mainstream media is "biased" is opening yourself up to bias with fewer checks

Not sure what "thing" has been going on since the mid-90s. Conspiracy? Gov't influence over other countries' elections? Assassination? Media manipulattion?
This was a direct reply to your comment "When a news channel is clearly attempting to push one candidate instead of offering a "marketplace of ideas"..". Fox News has been around since the mid-90s. Do you believe that Fox News operates as a marketplace of ideas?

Your own short-sightedness and inability to "see how this could be anything other than people willfully going from bad to worse" (i.e. it's their fault they are acting so stupidly) is why we are in this mess.
No short-sightedness on my part. You listed reasons people are turning to conspiracy theories for information. I'm pointing out that none of these reasons hold water if these people are actually looking to see them remedied. Even if you can argue that media corporations are not held to high enough standards, conspiracy theorists are not held to any standards. Literally anything can be floated by these groups, as shown in the list I pulled from the video. Even within a specific theory, there are no checks as to what should/shouldn't be observed

Somewhere down the line you seem to have caught the notion that if you shill harder for your side, you'll be somehow rewarded in Heaven or something. You are very ideologically-driven. Pause a moment and consider this is what got Trump elected.
What side am I shilling for? I am voicing my disdain for conspiracy theories, I did not realize their was a political side that is pro-misinformation. thank you for clarifying that there is

The same logic applies to mainstream news outlets, so I'm unsure what you're saying here.
This is exactly what I'm saying. I am not claiming mainstream news outlets are not biased. I specifically chose the words "any source". This is a societal problem, not a technological or government problem. There were people who got their news from Weekly World News before "Q" came along. It's not going to change. My point is that these people are going to look for the sources that tell what they want to hear. This has always been the case and has little to do with the sins of our current media.

I'm pointing out that the media has failed people, pushing them into the arms of others who can provide "answers".
And I'm pointing out that someone who believes conspiracy theories are the solution to the failures of mainstream media are merely diving deeper into a world with no checks, balances, facts, etc

You have linked to a five second clip, removed from all context, of Mueller talking about someone else talking about WMDs. Mueller is not stating Iraq has WMDs. Did you even listen to the clip?
Mueller was not in a position to lie about WMDs. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq.

Mueller did not lie about WMDs. The clip posted doesn't contain Mueller lying about anything. He is reporting as to what the implications are domestically of the content (lies) that was provided by Bush's team. That is his job. Every intelligence agency in the US and NATO was reporting on these claims. This is an RT talking point. RT is the first (and only, beyond forums) hit when you google "Mueller lied about WMDs" with this video

And doesn't Q think Mueller is one of the good guys? Secretly working with Trump to get the deep state?

You must've confused Alex Jones or the group who "translates" Q's posts with the posts themselves. But since it's clear you get your information second-hand or not at all, it comes as no surprise that you would misunderstand.
I got that particular position from the Q researchers in the video posted above, though I admit, they are not first hand sources. I'm not sure where to get Q information first hand; if it requires visiting 4chan and 8chan I won't be hunting for it. But this only further proves my point. Trusting Q or other conspiracy theorists is a number of steps below trusting the media. Q followers are pushing this content whether or not it comes from Q. How many Q followers know what Q actually stands for?

Which of the following does Q not believe?

- a number of non-Trump government officials are practicing satanists
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in sacrificing children for adreno chemicals
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in a child sex trafficking ring

How does one determine what Q does/doesn't believe, and how does one know the information is coming from Q?

All of the bolded are things I've either never heard (though I've kept up on Q, casually, because it is significantly more interesting and more put-together than 95% of internet conspiracy theories) or things that are separate conspiracies (such as Lizard people, Gov't holding back cures, Demonic possession, etc) that predate Q's posts.
okay, doesn't change that:
A) Q "researchers" are pushing these things as well and citing them when representing Q publically
B) my opinion on these things is that they are dumb

Once again, this shows how moving from the "biased media" to Q is problematic. Q seems to be whatever people want to wrap into it. Even people who follow Q are getting different ideas about what's said. It's more like a religion than conspiracy or news

I noticed you didn't bold "Michelle Obama is a man", does Q actually post this?

You are aware that every website is hosted somewhere, right?
Yes, and that somewhere is not a place called "the internet". If you work for a hosting company, you can tell us you work for a hosting company, no need to be specific. I can't imagine why you would be talking to management of 4chan and conspiracy websites unless you host them, canvas on their services, or advertise with them. And unless Q is a hoax propagated by the admins of these services, I'm not sure why they would know any more about Q than the other users. I guess they'd have an IP, but if Q is who he claims he is, surely that wouldn't be worth much

I have no issue with you not telling us where you work, but it's worth pointing out that working for "the internet" does not give you any form of credentials, and makes it sounds like you not only do not actually work for "the internet" but may not understand what "the internet" is. I also work for "the internet" if you consider developing, deploying, and maintaining live web software as working for "the internet".

I don't know what it is you're hoping for me to provide here beyond my experience, which I won't get into much more detail. I did already answer, though:
"some of them are batty. Some are not. Some are very smart, actually."
Point being: there is merit to some of the things Q talks about, as you yourself already acknowledged in your laundry-list above. That is why I am "in the middle on Q" instead of being completely For or Against.
I'm hoping for you to elaborate on what insider information you have as an employee of "the internet" that should make me think of Q in a better light. The idea that some people are batty and some are very smart is not surprising, and says nothing about Q

Here's your quote: " I work for the internet and have an intimate understanding of how 4Chan and these smaller conspiracy websites work. I've spoken to their proprietors on the phone, and some of them are batty. Some are not. Some are very smart, actually."

This is not saying anything.

Why do you consider 4chan a smaller conspiracy website rather than an anonymous image board?

I wouldn't have knowledge about that either way. I'm not sure it's relevant. A genuine leaker could use 4chan -- or any other website -- to leak. A faker could, too. That's why the content of the posts gets examined.
agreed

No, you may not presume that. Media has failed us in many ways, some of which I have already listed. It's not either a) the media has failed us or b) the people fleeing traditional media are only doing it because it doesn't conform to their bias. You have an extremely binary view of politics and the world in general.
If media has failed, running from the media to the corner of the web that tells you what you want to hear says more about media's failures to meet your own expectations than media's failures to meet society's needs. Those who want media to function to society's benefit stick with it and hold it accountable

No. When the media doesn't address a topic at all, or if they address it in a way that is quite obviously a lie, people will seek out more information.
a topic like any of the ones I listed above? These things are nuts, and to be fair to the media, many media outlets have taken the time to go out of their way to explain why
Where do you draw the line? How do you decide which topics the media must address? Who will make this decision?

But sure. SURE. The people who scratched their heads -- for instance -- after being told the Clinton emails "were illegal to look at or download" were just being biased.
Good, then go after Cuomo! Go after CNN! God knows the liberals have to do this constantly with FOX blunders

But jumping from Cuomo saying something stupid on CNN to "the media can't be trusted and there must be a child sex trafficking ring involved" is quite the leap, is it not?

And you call me a shill... The tenacity with which you stick to this email thing is nuts. Cuomo said it's illegal to possess stolen documents, which is technically true for physical documents and may be why he was confused. He didn't say it was illegal to look at them, and presumably went on to talk about what was in them. What he said was dumb, especially since he decided something wasn't illegal for the media but was for everyone else, and he deserves to be called out for it. But pumping this up to a conspiracy is laughable, and this is exactly why we have multiple media sources, so that others, such as the "liberal" Washington Post, can correct him. It's no different than all the fud going around the other week that companies had to give up the right to curate content to gain their Section 230 exemption. If this is all you've got on a news network that's been broadcasting 24/7 for decades, they must be doing pretty good

What a crock of partisan shit. I hope you're getting paid for your hard work.
Nothing I've stated in this thread is partisan, unless you are of the opinion that conspiracy theories and Q anon represent the political views of the right, in which case, that's unfortunate for American politics.
The post you replied to with this nonsense is talking about how turning your back on the media for it's lack of transparency, oversite, "fairness", etc in favor of conspiracy theorists is hypocritical. I fair to see how you've argued otherwise. The media at least has some oversite and checks in place, and we know who is reporting from them and who their sources are. With Q, we have nothing

Q's entire bit is about "what's going on". Whether it is answers about the Las Vegas shooting, events in Russia, mysterious deaths of journalists, etc. that is what Q seems to talk about. And unfortunately, the media doesn't even expend the effort to set the record straight. Instead, they "go after" Q which only makes it worse.
And you don't see how this is more dangerous than the mainstream media? That people should trust one anonymous source, with no proof they are legit, on everything from the Vegas shooting, to Russia, to the deaths of journalists? As if one person would know the truth about all of these things?
And how much effort should the mainstream media put into what appears to be either a prank, or some weird Trump viral marketing? How much effort should they have put into John Titor? Or the dude whose uncle works at Nintendo? If Q revealed his actual source, you can bet the media would take notice, but for now he's no different than any NeoGaf poster making shit up for lulz
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not trying to hide my disdain for Q followers. I listed exactly which of their beliefs I'd consider "stupid" in that post. I don't see how Q benefits anyone, even the people following it. For all they know they are being trolled

My point here is that everything you are accusing the "media" of, as if mainstream news networks are operating in lockstep on all matters, is 100 times worse when you're information source is an anonymous leaker on 4chan. It's 100 steps in the wrong direction



It's always been a complex issue, when have I said otherwise? And nothing in your post implicated any political party, so I'm not sure where you are getting anything partisan. Everybody with something to hide goes after whistle blowers; Republicans, Democrats, and corporations have all done it. And as much as we want to champion freedom, there are situations where going after a whistelblower may be right, hence my complex issue comment.

If you are implying I am anti whistleblower because I am anti "Q", I do not see how Q can be seen as a whistleblower. There's a difference between whistleblowing and making shit up to stir the pot



you are right, we do not have a completely transparent government. I agree that it would be great if it were more transparent, and support any efforts to do so.
My point is that we know which officials are elected and which ones aren't. I'm not sure what your initial statement was implying. My point is that if the officials should be elected, lets change it. Not sure why officials not being elected would be wrapped up in conspiracy theories, we know who is appointing them. If we don't like a judge, we blame the party who appointed said judge



Not funny at all:

- "If you're takeaway from the Zuckerberg hearing was that the government is somehow controlling Facebook, I pity you."
- "The hearing was a threat by the government to step in, and everything Facebook has done since is an attempt to remain independent."

These statements are not at odds. Facebook took the hearing as a warning that the Government might step in and start making decisions for them. Facebook is currently operating independently and does not want to lose that independence. You have not refuted my statement



This is how media censorship works in the US. The media censors itself. The MPAA is controlled by the industry. The ESRB is controlled by the industry. They do this in part because they do not want the government stepping in and doing it for them, in part because the government can't. I agree with what you're saying at a macro level, but the idea that the government could step in and control *anything* is a problem that always exists for any industry. The Facebook hearing was a platform for the government to make it's grievances with Facebook known, much like the government may step in and scold a monopoly here and there. The ball is now in Facebook's court to act. If things continue as they have, Facebook runs the risk of the government slowly but surely stepping in

My point is that the government does not control Facebook currently and my point stands; if it did, there'd be no reason for a hearing



I never said they were choosing a particular side. My point is that anonymous conspiracy sources are even more capable of pushing political bias than mainstream media. This is evident via Q, which is unambiguously choosing a side. I would argue your examples are no longer good examples, as both have been proven true, but we can certainly find conspiracy theories against the right, the biggest being 9/11

My point is simply that turning to conspiracy theories because the mainstream media is "biased" is opening yourself up to bias with fewer checks



This was a direct reply to your comment "When a news channel is clearly attempting to push one candidate instead of offering a "marketplace of ideas"..". Fox News has been around since the mid-90s. Do you believe that Fox News operates as a marketplace of ideas?



No short-sightedness on my part. You listed reasons people are turning to conspiracy theories for information. I'm pointing out that none of these reasons hold water if these people are actually looking to see them remedied. Even if you can argue that media corporations are not held to high enough standards, conspiracy theorists are not held to any standards. Literally anything can be floated by these groups, as shown in the list I pulled from the video. Even within a specific theory, there are no checks as to what should/shouldn't be observed



What side am I shilling for? I am voicing my disdain for conspiracy theories, I did not realize their was a political side that is pro-misinformation. thank you for clarifying that there is



This is exactly what I'm saying. I am not claiming mainstream news outlets are not biased. I specifically chose the words "any source". This is a societal problem, not a technological or government problem. There were people who got their news from Weekly World News before "Q" came along. It's not going to change. My point is that these people are going to look for the sources that tell what they want to hear. This has always been the case and has little to do with the sins of our current media.



And I'm pointing out that someone who believes conspiracy theories are the solution to the failures of mainstream media are merely diving deeper into a world with no checks, balances, facts, etc



You have linked to a five second clip, removed from all context, of Mueller talking about someone else talking about WMDs. Mueller is not stating Iraq has WMDs. Did you even listen to the clip?
Mueller was not in a position to lie about WMDs. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq.

Mueller did not lie about WMDs. The clip posted doesn't contain Mueller lying about anything. He is reporting as to what the implications are domestically of the content (lies) that was provided by Bush's team. That is his job. Every intelligence agency in the US and NATO was reporting on these claims. This is an RT talking point. RT is the first (and only, beyond forums) hit when you google "Mueller lied about WMDs" with this video

And doesn't Q think Mueller is one of the good guys? Secretly working with Trump to get the deep state?



I got that particular position from the Q researchers in the video posted above, though I admit, they are not first hand sources. I'm not sure where to get Q information first hand; if it requires visiting 4chan and 8chan I won't be hunting for it. But this only further proves my point. Trusting Q or other conspiracy theorists is a number of steps below trusting the media. Q followers are pushing this content whether or not it comes from Q. How many Q followers know what Q actually stands for?

Which of the following does Q not believe?

- a number of non-Trump government officials are practicing satanists
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in sacrificing children for adreno chemicals
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in a child sex trafficking ring

How does one determine what Q does/doesn't believe, and how does one know the information is coming from Q?



okay, doesn't change that:
A) Q "researchers" are pushing these things as well and citing them when representing Q publically
B) my opinion on these things is that they are dumb

Once again, this shows how moving from the "biased media" to Q is problematic. Q seems to be whatever people want to wrap into it. Even people who follow Q are getting different ideas about what's said. It's more like a religion than conspiracy or news

I noticed you didn't bold "Michelle Obama is a man", does Q actually post this?



Yes, and that somewhere is not a place called "the internet". If you work for a hosting company, you can tell us you work for a hosting company, no need to be specific. I can't imagine why you would be talking to management of 4chan and conspiracy websites unless you host them, canvas on their services, or advertise with them. And unless Q is a hoax propagated by the admins of these services, I'm not sure why they would know any more about Q than the other users. I guess they'd have an IP, but if Q is who he claims he is, surely that wouldn't be worth much

I have no issue with you not telling us where you work, but it's worth pointing out that working for "the internet" does not give you any form of credentials, and makes it sounds like you not only do not actually work for "the internet" but may not understand what "the internet" is. I also work for "the internet" if you consider developing, deploying, and maintaining live web software as working for "the internet".



I'm hoping for you to elaborate on what insider information you have as an employee of "the internet" that should make me think of Q in a better light. The idea that some people are batty and some are very smart is not surprising, and says nothing about Q

Here's your quote: " I work for the internet and have an intimate understanding of how 4Chan and these smaller conspiracy websites work. I've spoken to their proprietors on the phone, and some of them are batty. Some are not. Some are very smart, actually."

This is not saying anything.

Why do you consider 4chan a smaller conspiracy website rather than an anonymous image board?



agreed



If media has failed, running from the media to the corner of the web that tells you what you want to hear says more about media's failures to meet your own expectations than media's failures to meet society's needs. Those who want media to function to society's benefit stick with it and hold it accountable



a topic like any of the ones I listed above? These things are nuts, and to be fair to the media, many media outlets have taken the time to go out of their way to explain why
Where do you draw the line? How do you decide which topics the media must address? Who will make this decision?



Good, then go after Cuomo! Go after CNN! God knows the liberals have to do this constantly with FOX blunders

But jumping from Cuomo saying something stupid on CNN to "the media can't be trusted and there must be a child sex trafficking ring involved" is quite the leap, is it not?

And you call me a shill... The tenacity with which you stick to this email thing is nuts. Cuomo said it's illegal to possess stolen documents, which is technically true for physical documents and may be why he was confused. He didn't say it was illegal to look at them, and presumably went on to talk about what was in them. What he said was dumb, especially since he decided something wasn't illegal for the media but was for everyone else, and he deserves to be called out for it. But pumping this up to a conspiracy is laughable, and this is exactly why we have multiple media sources, so that others, such as the "liberal" Washington Post, can correct him. It's no different than all the fud going around the other week that companies had to give up the right to curate content to gain their Section 230 exemption. If this is all you've got on a news network that's been broadcasting 24/7 for decades, they must be doing pretty good



Nothing I've stated in this thread is partisan, unless you are of the opinion that conspiracy theories and Q anon represent the political views of the right, in which case, that's unfortunate for American politics.
The post you replied to with this nonsense is talking about how turning your back on the media for it's lack of transparency, oversite, "fairness", etc in favor of conspiracy theorists is hypocritical. I fair to see how you've argued otherwise. The media at least has some oversite and checks in place, and we know who is reporting from them and who their sources are. With Q, we have nothing



And you don't see how this is more dangerous than the mainstream media? That people should trust one anonymous source, with no proof they are legit, on everything from the Vegas shooting, to Russia, to the deaths of journalists? As if one person would know the truth about all of these things?
And how much effort should the mainstream media put into what appears to be either a prank, or some weird Trump viral marketing? How much effort should they have put into John Titor? Or the dude whose uncle works at Nintendo? If Q revealed his actual source, you can bet the media would take notice, but for now he's no different than any NeoGaf poster making shit up for lulz
I can't offer a full reply until tomorrow but thank you for the excellent response. I'll get back to you after I've had a chance to re-read.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Bear with me since I had to cut it in half. I don't think you have to reply to every piece unless you'd prefer to take it to PMs.

Yes, and that somewhere is not a place called "the internet". If you work for a hosting company, you can tell us you work for a hosting company, no need to be specific. I can't imagine why you would be talking to management of 4chan and conspiracy websites unless you host them, canvas on their services, or advertise with them. And unless Q is a hoax propagated by the admins of these services, I'm not sure why they would know any more about Q than the other users. I guess they'd have an IP, but if Q is who he claims he is, surely that wouldn't be worth much

I have no issue with you not telling us where you work, but it's worth pointing out that working for "the internet" does not give you any form of credentials, and makes it sounds like you not only do not actually work for "the internet" but may not understand what "the internet" is. I also work for "the internet" if you consider developing, deploying, and maintaining live web software as working for "the internet".
I'm pulling this out of the middle to address first: I think you've misjudged my tone and... involvement with Q.

You took my statement as "HEY GAF, I AM AN EXPERT BECAUSE MY UNCLE WORKS AT NINTENDO". Since you also "work for the internet", you already know that rattling off all your credentials can be exhausting. So, I just used casual, tongue-in-cheek shorthand. But if you want to talk about how Apache allocates resources to requests, or how to configure which services listen to which ports, or how garbage Wordpress can get when it's overloaded with plugins and poorly-designed themes, I'm all ears.

Hope you don't have to "maintain live web software" too much. That's the most obnoxious part of web-dev'ing in my opinion.

I'm not trying to hide my disdain for Q followers. I listed exactly which of their beliefs I'd consider "stupid" in that post. I don't see how Q benefits anyone, even the people following it. For all they know they are being trolled

My point here is that everything you are accusing the "media" of, as if mainstream news networks are operating in lockstep on all matters, is 100 times worse when you're information source is an anonymous leaker on 4chan. It's 100 steps in the wrong direction
I view Q as a product of our times, not as some kind of oracle. The reason why I give it a bit more credence is because it's significantly more sophisticated that the various conspiracies about skinwalkers, flat-hollow-inside-out-whatever-earth,

We do live in conspiratorial times, whether we like it or not. This is unfortunate, because some people (including many Q followers) take that to mean that every conspiracy has a chance.




It's always been a complex issue, when have I said otherwise? And nothing in your post implicated any political party, so I'm not sure where you are getting anything partisan. Everybody with something to hide goes after whistle blowers; Republicans, Democrats, and corporations have all done it. And as much as we want to champion freedom, there are situations where going after a whistelblower may be right, hence my complex issue comment.
Understood, but let's be clear: your charity as to what is or isn't a "complex issue" is strictly based on your own biases. Q is offering "answers" for a lot of current events, "deeper" answers than you can get on a typical 4-minute news segment, and certainly "deeper" than the dismissals from certain media outlets. Therefore, it only makes sense that some people -- beyond just those who are starving for their biases to be confirmed -- would pay attention and scrutinize it.

If you are implying I am anti whistleblower because I am anti "Q", I do not see how Q can be seen as a whistleblower. There's a difference between whistleblowing and making shit up to stir the pot
A whistleblower has "inside info" and tries to expose it all. That's identical to Q's mission (or whatever). If Q is a Gov't agent (or agency) trying to "expose the truth", then it is whistleblowing.

But you're right in the sense that until it is confirmed or refuted, we cannot know if it is genuine whistleblowing

you are right, we do not have a completely transparent government. I agree that it would be great if it were more transparent, and support any efforts to do so.
My point is that we know which officials are elected and which ones aren't. I'm not sure what your initial statement was implying. My point is that if the officials should be elected, lets change it. Not sure why officials not being elected would be wrapped up in conspiracy theories, we know who is appointing them. If we don't like a judge, we blame the party who appointed said judge
I guess you and I are just talking about two completely different things here. Knowing which officials are elected and which ones aren't doesn't really move the needle if there are branches of the Gov't holding back information, redacting information, and resisting FOIA requests (which are Gov't has been doing).

I'm too pragmatic to open up the mess of electing a ton more officials. We already can't get half the country to vote. I'd prefer transparency which will allow us to make those decisions (including which positions should or shouldn't be elected) more clearly.

Not funny at all:

- "If you're takeaway from the Zuckerberg hearing was that the government is somehow controlling Facebook, I pity you."
- "The hearing was a threat by the government to step in, and everything Facebook has done since is an attempt to remain independent."

These statements are not at odds. Facebook took the hearing as a warning that the Government might step in and start making decisions for them. Facebook is currently operating independently and does not want to lose that independence. You have not refuted my statement
I think we're clashing over semantics, not content.

The Government has a substantial influence over Facebook, in part due to the threat of regulation it is holding over its head. If you heard the hearing, the Committee seemed far more interested in controlling and utilizing Facebook, not wiping it from the face of the earth. I think you're fixating too much on my usage of the word control when it appears you and I are acknowledging the same chain of events.

Facebook is making decisions based on Gov't influence and the threat of Gov't influence. How's that? If your issue with my verbiage is an implication that Facebook reports directly to the Gov't, is secretly a branch of the Gov't, or is led by a body of Gov't officials, I don't think that's the case either.

This is how media censorship works in the US. The media censors itself. The MPAA is controlled by the industry. The ESRB is controlled by the industry. They do this in part because they do not want the government stepping in and doing it for them, in part because the government can't. I agree with what you're saying at a macro level, but the idea that the government could step in and control *anything* is a problem that always exists for any industry. The Facebook hearing was a platform for the government to make it's grievances with Facebook known, much like the government may step in and scold a monopoly here and there. The ball is now in Facebook's court to act. If things continue as they have, Facebook runs the risk of the government slowly but surely stepping in
Doubtful. In light of Facebook's data-gathering, their removal of certain content, the Russian propaganda, I would've thought the hearing would have more substance than it did. But since Facebook is merely doing what the NSA and CIA already do, I suppose it was a bit too much on the nose for them.

I think this article was a decent overview of how much of a nothingburger the hearing was.

My point is that the government does not control Facebook currently and my point stands; if it did, there'd be no reason for a hearing
I addressed this above. If the word "control" doesn't sit well with you, "influence" will suffice.

I never said they were choosing a particular side. My point is that anonymous conspiracy sources are even more capable of pushing political bias than mainstream media. This is evident via Q, which is unambiguously choosing a side. I would argue your examples are no longer good examples, as both have been proven true, but we can certainly find conspiracy theories against the right, the biggest being 9/11

My point is simply that turning to conspiracy theories because the mainstream media is "biased" is opening yourself up to bias with fewer checks
Possible. It's also true that conspiracy theorists like to "dig". So, unlike a passive viewer who switched on Fox and heard that Trump was their savior, a conspiracy theorist -- by definition -- is not interested in whatever answers are easily presented to them. This is true for Q as well since Q's posts are cryptic and hardly to-the-point.

I think this is a strong case that bias from the media and bias from conspiracy theories (both of which do occur) take two different forms and affect different people. I would argue that conspiracy theorists are vulnerable to bias when they use sources that are untrue-but-believable. I would argue that your typical news-watcher is vulnerable to bias when they turn on the channel.

This was a direct reply to your comment "When a news channel is clearly attempting to push one candidate instead of offering a "marketplace of ideas"..". Fox News has been around since the mid-90s. Do you believe that Fox News operates as a marketplace of ideas?
Nowadays? Sadly, they offer more viewpoints than CNN or MSNBC. I spend more time getting a spectrum of news coverage and when it comes to the "talking heads" editorializing, I've seen far more dissenting-yet-educated people allowed to speak on Fox than I've seen on other channels. Sure, Tucker Carlson tends to pick a dummy and then laughs at their dumb ideas, but I've seen him called out live, I've seen Hannity called out live, I've seen (forget his name) make sharp criticism of Trump without being shouted down or ejected from the room.

All that said, I have to go out and hunt for "the marketplace of ideas". I'm not confident that Fox or any organization is doing its best in that regard.

No short-sightedness on my part. You listed reasons people are turning to conspiracy theories for information. I'm pointing out that none of these reasons hold water if these people are actually looking to see them remedied. Even if you can argue that media corporations are not held to high enough standards, conspiracy theorists are not held to any standards. Literally anything can be floated by these groups, as shown in the list I pulled from the video. Even within a specific theory, there are no checks as to what should/shouldn't be observed
Conspiracy theories are the release-valve of public opinion. Lots of it is steam but some of it is scalding-hot truth. I hold media to a completely different standard than I would any body of conspiracy theorists because they are two completely different operations. News Media's role is to deliver accurate information. Conspiracies insist that information is not enough. They are two sides of the same coin.

What side am I shilling for? I am voicing my disdain for conspiracy theories, I did not realize their was a political side that is pro-misinformation. thank you for clarifying that there is
I apologize for calling you a shill.

This is exactly what I'm saying. I am not claiming mainstream news outlets are not biased. I specifically chose the words "any source". This is a societal problem, not a technological or government problem. There were people who got their news from Weekly World News before "Q" came along. It's not going to change. My point is that these people are going to look for the sources that tell what they want to hear. This has always been the case and has little to do with the sins of our current media.
Agreed, some people are looking for sources that tell them what they want to hear, but that's irrelevant as to the truthfulness of the news. Either it's true or it isn't. I'm not one to say that something is or isn't true simply based on who follows it, personally.

And I'm pointing out that someone who believes conspiracy theories are the solution to the failures of mainstream media are merely diving deeper into a world with no checks, balances, facts, etc
But they are. "Conspiracy theories" are a refusal to believe that what we are told is what is going on. Without them, we wouldn't have heard about citizens being killed in Vietnam. We wouldn't have heard about the genocides behind the Iron Curtain.

When you remove checks and balances, you get conspiracies about Lizard People. But you also get leaks about NSA surveillance. It goes with the territory.

(continued)
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
(continued from above)

You have linked to a five second clip, removed from all context, of Mueller talking about someone else talking about WMDs. Mueller is not stating Iraq has WMDs. Did you even listen to the clip?
Mueller was not in a position to lie about WMDs. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq.

Mueller did not lie about WMDs. The clip posted doesn't contain Mueller lying about anything. He is reporting as to what the implications are domestically of the content (lies) that was provided by Bush's team. That is his job. Every intelligence agency in the US and NATO was reporting on these claims. This is an RT talking point. RT is the first (and only, beyond forums) hit when you google "Mueller lied about WMDs" with this video

And doesn't Q think Mueller is one of the good guys? Secretly working with Trump to get the deep state?
Sorry, but this is a cop-out. Mueller was Director of the FBI at the time. The clip was merely a public record of him making the statements about WMDs, not some comprehensive investigation. It should suffice, since history is already clear on the matter.

I lived through this. I remember watching this hearing on C-SPAN years ago. I remember reading the WaPo headline: Irrefutable. The notion that Mueller was just some innocent shmuck who couldn't have known either way (and yet spoke at a hearing?) is downright silly. We got lied into a war and Mueller was one of the mouthpieces. It presents me with two strange options:

Either Mueller is terrible at his job as the Director of the FBI (at the time) and shouldn't be trusted as he looks for "weapons of presidential destruction", or he lied on purpose and shouldn't be trusted. He's either incompetent or a liar. Most of our warmongering politicians and officials are, I suppose.

I got that particular position from the Q researchers in the video posted above, though I admit, they are not first hand sources. I'm not sure where to get Q information first hand; if it requires visiting 4chan and 8chan I won't be hunting for it. But this only further proves my point. Trusting Q or other conspiracy theorists is a number of steps below trusting the media.
I wouldn't recommend tracking it down unless you want to.

As you've pointed out, 4Chan "could be anybody" and there are no checks and balances. 4Chan is the slimy den of all things trolling, fakery, and misinformation for the sake of it.

So it does strike me as interesting that -- in spite of all these negatives -- some people are finding truth and putting together pieces using Q's posts from a message board that is known for being absolutely garbage-juice. The easy choice is to say "hah, what dummies", sure.

Q followers are pushing this content whether or not it comes from Q. How many Q followers know what Q actually stands for?

Which of the following does Q not believe?

- a number of non-Trump government officials are practicing satanists
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in sacrificing children for adreno chemicals
- a number of non-Trump government officials are involved in a child sex trafficking ring

How does one determine what Q does/doesn't believe, and how does one know the information is coming from Q?
From what I've seen, posters who "translate" for Q will use pictures and cross-references at a minimum. At worst, you can ignore their opinion and look at the posts yourself. This appears to help cut down on the FUD since it is public record what Q has said.

okay, doesn't change that:
A) Q "researchers" are pushing these things as well and citing them when representing Q publically
Yep, true. It has no bearing on whether or not Q is legitimate.

B) my opinion on these things is that they are dumb
I know. I'll admit that there are dummies who follow Q, but that's hardly an inditement since dummies follow nearly anything.

Once again, this shows how moving from the "biased media" to Q is problematic. Q seems to be whatever people want to wrap into it.
No, I don't think this is fair. As I pointed out above, the Q posts are public and so is our news. Any person can dig into the information themselves without listening to a single mouthpiece and come to their own conclusions.

But like anything, people can read into things that aren't there. That has more to do with the people and less to do with the topic they're obsessing over.

Even people who follow Q are getting different ideas about what's said. It's more like a religion than conspiracy or news
Which is why I brought up Hoffer. I see this mentality on the rise in all corners of politics and discourse.

I noticed you didn't bold "Michelle Obama is a man", does Q actually post this?
I've seen Q's followers post it and it wasn't a theory (to my knowledge) prior to Q. I don't know if Q has ever posted anything directly. To my knowledge, it's one of the Alex Jones-type theories that got blended in.

I'm hoping for you to elaborate on what insider information you have as an employee of "the internet" that should make me think of Q in a better light. The idea that some people are batty and some are very smart is not surprising, and says nothing about Q
Already discussed at the beginning.

You have a low opinion of anyone who follows Q. I disagree: some people are batty and some are very smart.

Where does credibility come from? Doesn't it come from educated, well-spoken individuals who dig into the mess of information and pick out the pearls? You have set up a contrast between the biased-but-credible Media and the freewheeling-unchecked Conspiracy Theorists. What would move the needle from "conspiracy" over to "news"? Would it not be very smart people dissecting the topic and offering their findings?

Here's your quote: " I work for the internet and have an intimate understanding of how 4Chan and these smaller conspiracy websites work. I've spoken to their proprietors on the phone, and some of them are batty. Some are not. Some are very smart, actually."

This is not saying anything.
Already addressed at the beginning and in the prior section.

Why do you consider 4chan a smaller conspiracy website rather than an anonymous image board?

agreed
Because it has leaked things in the past and in the present?

I don't consider it to be a "smaller conspiracy website" though. I've seen my share of those. That's why I said "4chan and smaller conspiracy websites"

If media has failed, running from the media to the corner of the web that tells you what you want to hear says more about media's failures to meet your own expectations than media's failures to meet society's needs.
That's only true if the media is doing a good job of providing a "marketplace of ideas", which it isn't, so I disagree. Do some people do that? Sure, we're back to Hoffer again. But that is not a reflection on the truthfulness of the topic. Nazi concentration camps were, at a time, considered anti-German propaganda until more information came out. Sadly, some still consider the truth about concentration camps to be propaganda. At what point does chasing after a conspiracy cease to be "trying to meet your own expectations" and "trying to confirm your own biases"?

Those who want media to function to society's benefit stick with it and hold it accountable
No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty who genuinely want the media to function to society's benefit but might not have the means or knowledge to hold it accountable. Some might despair instead of doing anything about it. Some might hold it accountable by chasing after the truth itself. Voila! Conspiracy born.

Ideally, sure, we would all just hold our media accountable and everyone would get accurate news.

a topic like any of the ones I listed above? These things are nuts, and to be fair to the media, many media outlets have taken the time to go out of their way to explain why
You know what conspiracies receive the most debunking nowadays? Moon landings and Flat earth, two of the easiest-to-prove topics of our time. I find it strange how we will make much ado about flat-earthers but shuffle things under the rug when it comes to some of our politicians (who should be more accountable, not less).

Where do you draw the line?
Who says a line needs to be drawn at all? Do you believe curated content is superior to open access to all content?

How do you decide which topics the media must address?
The owners of the paper or channel decide, balanced by their need for revenue. Ideally, this would drive them to seek out the truthiest of the truths, but it does not. In those cases, public outcry or citizen investigation becomes necessary.

Who will make this decision?
Each individual is responsible for what they believe, so I suppose it is ultimately up to the individual to decide what news they consume. Market forces balanced by regulations take care of the rest.

Good, then go after Cuomo! Go after CNN! God knows the liberals have to do this constantly with FOX blunders

But jumping from Cuomo saying something stupid on CNN to "the media can't be trusted and there must be a child sex trafficking ring involved" is quite the leap, is it not?
It's just an example. My goal isn't to provide a comprehensive list of all the lies told by the media. I'm merely pointing out that there are perfectly valid reasons why people would distrust the media, pushing them to search for alternative sources of information. Nothing controversial about that.

And you call me a shill... The tenacity with which you stick to this email thing is nuts. Cuomo said it's illegal to possess stolen documents, which is technically true for physical documents and may be why he was confused. He didn't say it was illegal to look at them, and presumably went on to talk about what was in them. What he said was dumb, especially since he decided something wasn't illegal for the media but was for everyone else, and he deserves to be called out for it.
He said:

"Also it's interesting, remember, it is illegal to posses these stolen documents. It's different for the media, so everything you learn about this you learn from us. And in full disclosure, let's take a look at what that means."

And because it was during an election, there was a mad scramble by one side as well as the FBI to downplay the emails while the other side screamed about it.

My point in bringing it up was to highlight how dishonest and biased our media is and how that would push people to seek alternative sources of news. It's just one example.

But pumping this up to a conspiracy is laughable
Okay, I'll bite. What part about the email server wasn't conspiratorial? Obama said he didn't know, and then he did. Hillary said she didn't know, and then she did. Officials said there was nothing illegal, and then there was. News outlets played their role on smudging whatever they could. I haven't checked news on this issue for a few weeks but haven't they still not turned over the email server?

That is conspiracy, straight up.

and this is exactly why we have multiple media sources, so that others, such as the "liberal" Washington Post, can correct him. It's no different than all the fud going around the other week that companies had to give up the right to curate content to gain their Section 230 exemption. If this is all you've got on a news network that's been broadcasting 24/7 for decades, they must be doing pretty good
Don't confuse "multiple media sources" with "multiple viewpoints" when they are owned by the same few conglomerates.

Nothing I've stated in this thread is partisan, unless you are of the opinion that conspiracy theories and Q anon represent the political views of the right, in which case, that's unfortunate for American politics.
The post you replied to with this nonsense is talking about how turning your back on the media for it's lack of transparency, oversite, "fairness", etc in favor of conspiracy theorists is hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical, as I've explained above. It can certainly be foolish. There's no hypocrisy when you see gaps in a public news story, wonder what the truth is, and search it out.

I fair to see how you've argued otherwise. The media at least has some oversite and checks in place, and we know who is reporting from them and who their sources are. With Q, we have nothing
I would agree with you if our current oversight and checks resulted in fairer media. It doesn't. We used to have a law that required alternative viewpoints but we got rid of that.

I also -- fundamentally -- disagree that more oversight/checks will equal more truth when compared to a source that uses fewer oversights/checks. I will concede that it will result in fewer lies, but not necessarily more truth. Those are two completely different things.

And you don't see how this is more dangerous than the mainstream media? That people should trust one anonymous source
That isn't the case, though. Since Q is up to interpretation and puzzle-solving, by its very nature there cannot be "one anonymous source". If there is any prediction or statement made by Q, anyone can search for multiple sources of confirmation or refutation (which they tend to do).

That puts folks at risk for jumping to conclusions and chasing down trails that lead to nothing, however, which you've pointed out.

, with no proof they are legit, on everything from the Vegas shooting, to Russia, to the deaths of journalists? As if one person would know the truth about all of these things?
In the context of Q -- who is supposedly some NSA agent or aide to the president or whover -- how would they prove themselves to be true if they are intentionally "keeping quiet"?

Awfully convenient, that's true. Do you think it's impossible that any one person would know all these things, or that it's impossible they would share it on a message board?

And how much effort should the mainstream media put into what appears to be either a prank, or some weird Trump viral marketing? How much effort should they have put into John Titor? Or the dude whose uncle works at Nintendo? If Q revealed his actual source, you can bet the media would take notice, but for now he's no different than any NeoGaf poster making shit up for lulz
I discussed "how much effort" a few sections above.

However, you've made a leap: most of Q's posts make reference to publicly available information. So, the sources are already there. You can verify whether or not the stories Q references are true or not. Q does not "break news" but rather "puts pieces together" and makes vague predictions (which are the weakest part of the whole thing; it's why I'm still leery of it all).

So what you're asking for isn't sources. You're asking for credentials so that you can make a judgment call as to the validity of the information. Understandable!
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
480
1,345
USA
okay, this is getting to be way too long, and I don't care that much

This is not to say I'm outright dismissing you; if there's something specific you'd like me to respond to, let me know

Otherwise, you're free to believe Q, and I will continue to see it as an obvious farce

One thing we could do is identify what Q is proclaiming and see if it ends up becoming true. It seems we can't even agree as to what Q represents. As mentioned above, I don't even know how to get first-hand Q information, and you haven't provided me the means I requested. It seems you are also not sure, as you mentioned you don't know where he stands on certain things, and you did not point to how specifically I misrepresented Q between the satanism, baby killing, and pedo stuff that is commonly attributed to him by the media (and many who claim to represent him)

So I'm going to make my best attempt and I'm going to assume Q and those who follow him would keep his Wikipedia page accurate. Thus Q stands for the following: QAnon adherents believe that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and others are planning a coup while simultaneously involved as members of an international child sex trafficking ring. According to this idea, the Mueller investigation is actually a countercoup led by Donald Trump, who pretended to collude with Russia in order to hire Robert Mueller to secretly investigate the Democrats

If we can agree that this is one of the main Q beliefs, we can sit back and wait; eventually the Mueller Investigation will close and it will be clear whether Mueller was actually going after Soros and company's child sex trafficking ring rather than Russian election interference. So far, things aren't looking very good for Q, considering the bulk of the indictments out of the investigation are indeed targeting Russian election interference

If you think the above is an unfair representation of Q, please show why, and please provide a source for fair Q representations we can use as a measure of accuracy in the future
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,913
15,028
665
USA
dunpachi.com
okay, this is getting to be way too long, and I don't care that much

This is not to say I'm outright dismissing you; if there's something specific you'd like me to respond to, let me know

Otherwise, you're free to believe Q, and I will continue to see it as an obvious farce

One thing we could do is identify what Q is proclaiming and see if it ends up becoming true. It seems we can't even agree as to what Q represents. As mentioned above, I don't even know how to get first-hand Q information, and you haven't provided me the means I requested. It seems you are also not sure, as you mentioned you don't know where he stands on certain things, and you did not point to how specifically I misrepresented Q between the satanism, baby killing, and pedo stuff that is commonly attributed to him by the media (and many who claim to represent him)

So I'm going to make my best attempt and I'm going to assume Q and those who follow him would keep his Wikipedia page accurate. Thus Q stands for the following: QAnon adherents believe that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and others are planning a coup while simultaneously involved as members of an international child sex trafficking ring. According to this idea, the Mueller investigation is actually a countercoup led by Donald Trump, who pretended to collude with Russia in order to hire Robert Mueller to secretly investigate the Democrats

If we can agree that this is one of the main Q beliefs, we can sit back and wait; eventually the Mueller Investigation will close and it will be clear whether Mueller was actually going after Soros and company's child sex trafficking ring rather than Russian election interference. So far, things aren't looking very good for Q, considering the bulk of the indictments out of the investigation are indeed targeting Russian election interference

If you think the above is an unfair representation of Q, please show why, and please provide a source for fair Q representations we can use as a measure of accuracy in the future
No worries. I think you and I pretty much talked it to death and made our points. I appreciate you giving so much of your time to the discussion already.

See you 'round the forum.