QAnon Conspriacy theory

[beirnini]

Thoughts on this QAnon conspiracy?

What makes QAnon a little a different, and little bit scarier, than many of the conspiracy theories Americans have latched onto through the decades, is that it’s fundamentally authoritarian (like Joseph McCarthy’s raving about communist infiltration of the government, but more surreal). QAnon believers aren’t fearfully scouting for black helicopters. They’re waiting for the sitting president to deliver their country from evil by rounding up his political opposition. Adherents have taken to jubilantly counting up the sealed indictments federal authorities have filed lately because they see them as a sign that a mass wave of arrests is coming.

Considering how much Clinton still figures into so many political discussions here I'm a little concerned the believers of this conspiracy on this forum is non-zero.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thoughts on this QAnon conspiracy?

Considering how much Clinton still figures into so many political discussions here I'm a little concerned the believers of this conspiracy on this forum is non-zero.

Explain.

 

[PuckChaser]

Split this one into its own thread.

 

[beirnini]

Explain.

If you're expecting me to explain the QAnon conspiracy or any part therein you're barking up probably the most ill-equipped tree in this forest. But relatedly since Hillary is only ever mentioned around here in a strong accusation of a malfeasance of one sort or another I would think the distance to travel for some to a conspiracy surrounding her and her allies in regards to the activities of the Justice Department is not a particularly great one.

But if you think otherwise; that the people of this forum are uniformly above such speculation then by all means share your objections. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this.

 

[Good2Golf]

If you're expecting me to explain the QAnon conspiracy or any part therein you're barking up probably the most ill-equipped tree in this forest. But relatedly since Hillary is only ever mentioned around here in a strong accusation of a malfeasance of one sort or another I would think the distance to travel for some to a conspiracy surrounding her and her allies in regards to the activities of the Justice Department is not a particularly great one.

But if you think otherwise; that the people of this forum are uniformly above such speculation then by all means share your objections. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this.

      ???

beirnini, you're going to have to express your thoughts more clearly about how you see the title conspiracy linked to what people on this site believe.  You idea(s) is(are) very difficult to follow logically.

Is the issue with others, or perhaps your own misconceptions of what members of this site should be believing and/or expressing?

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[beirnini]

I don't presume to dictate what others should believe or say here. I have my beliefs on any given subject and I also have my suspicions on what others might believe or say on the same subject - just like everybody else. This subject is no different. If anyone has any thoughts to share on this subject I'm open to be disabused of any such suspicions.

With regards to this particular subject either one believes that Mueller is investigating what he was tasked to investigate or he's not. The QAnon conspiracy, so far as I am aware, believes he's not investigating what he was tasked - i.e. Russian interference into the 2016 election - but something to do with the so-called "Deep State".

I believe he's genuinely investigating Russian interference, and I would be "thrilled" in the context of American national interests and security that everybody here was on the same page with that concern. If there are some who do no share this belief, or even moreso put some stock in the QAnon conspiracy I would be both disappointed and unsurprised given what some have posted here previously.

 

[Furniture]

I believe he's genuinely investigating Russian interference, and I would be "thrilled" in the context of American national interests and security that everybody here was on the same page with that concern. If there are some who do no share this belief, or even moreso put some stock in the QAnon conspiracy I would be both disappointed and unsurprised given what some have posted here previously.

So by distrusting Clinton people are quack conspiracy theorists?

It's pretty clear that the Russians wanted to undermind electoral confidence in the US, apparently it worked... Could be that the way both parties in the US handle their nomination process makes for an easy jump to conclude the government has some backroom foolishness going on too. To be clear all governments have some of that backroom foolishness going on, it's just how bad/obvious it is that determines the level of trust in the government.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you're expecting me to explain the QAnon conspiracy or any part therein you're barking up probably the most ill-equipped tree in this forest. But relatedly since Hillary is only ever mentioned around here in a strong accusation of a malfeasance of one sort or another I would think the distance to travel for some to a conspiracy surrounding her and her allies in regards to the activities of the Justice Department is not a particularly great one.

But if you think otherwise; that the people of this forum are uniformly above such speculation then by all means share your objections. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this.

No, I don't expect you to explain the subject you posted. I'd never even heard of them.

I want you to explain this: "But relatedly since Hillary is only ever mentioned around here in a strong accusation of a malfeasance of one sort or another I would think the distance to travel for some to a conspiracy surrounding her and her allies in regards to the activities of the Justice Department is not a particularly great one.

But if you think otherwise; that the people of this forum are uniformly above such speculation then by all means share your objections. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this."

What do you base your statements on? Where is your baseline? You tossed an awful lot of speculation onto a lot of people here, before we move on to your problem, perhaps you should clear up your conceptions  "that the people of this forum are uniformly above such speculation", or not.

Besides, really? If there are two people reading the same article, you'll have two different opinions. Every single person, is also going to have their "what if" moment or alternate theory. It's a stupid premise to base a discussion on.

Although it is such a ridiculous premise, that if some lesser being had tossed it out here, it would likely be looked at as a very clumsy attempt to troll the forum and pick a fight based on nonsense.

But that's just me. I'm sure someone will be by to correct me or dock me milpoints, as per SOP, but that's my conspiracy theory

Now, personally, I think she's a liar, a cheat, maybe committed treason, who knows. All I do know is, that I would not put a single illegality out of her reach. I'm also not very likely to change that opinion. However, I also have no interest in a stacked argument, so this ends my discussion on this thread.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hillary represented a power bloc in the Democrats that believed that it is the "natural ruling party of the US" (sounds familiar?) They played games to ensure their candidate was the one and Bernie sent to exile. It's not surprising Hillary is the focus of various theories, the Clinton's are well entrenched with the powerblocs within the Dems. So where there is smoke, people will assume there is fire, it may be a small fire, but people clearly believe there is fire.

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps a read of Damian Thompson, Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered To Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science, and Fake History.  op:

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps a read of Damian Thompson, Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered To Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science, and Fake History.  op:

What?  No link?  Now I have to type it in to the google myself...  :tempertantrum:

 

[beirnini]

So by distrusting Clinton people are quack conspiracy theorists?

I would argue that what Hillary Clinton inspires is far worse than distrust, and the mentions she still gets here hint at it. Distrust is what most people generally feel about almost every politician. This conspiracy theory is rooted in something far more visceral than mere distrust.

 

[beirnini]

Hillary represented a power bloc in the Democrats that believed that it is the "natural ruling party of the US" (sounds familiar?) They played games to ensure their candidate was the one and Bernie sent to exile. It's not surprising Hillary is the focus of various theories, the Clinton's are well entrenched with the powerblocs within the Dems. So where there is smoke, people will assume there is fire, it may be a small fire, but people clearly believe there is fire.

Hillary's actions and words have proven out that she strongly thought and felt it was "her turn" in the Democratic Party. Her arrogance twisted and gamed the primary to her favour, there is no question. But the party that is more complicit in twisting and gaming electoral politics in their favour (e.g. gerrymandering and various voter laws) is the GOP. If there really is a party that arrogantly believes it is the "natural ruling party of the US" then by their actions it is far more arguably the GOP. Hillary's remark not long after her defeat that she knew "they would never let [her] win" hints at this.

Frankly from what little I know of this QAnon conspiracy it all strikes me as projection more than anything else.

 

[a_majoor]

(like Joseph McCarthy’s raving about communist infiltration of the government, but more surreal

While I really have no idea of what to make of this "Q" stuff, McCarthy was very correct about Communist infiltration of the US government, and there is plenty of modern historiography to demonstrate it. Not every conspiracy theory is "crazy".

As for "Q", I suggest we watch how things proceed and see how well they match up with the cryptic utterances. I suspect it is something like Nostradamus: you can read whatever you want in there.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hillary's actions and words have proven out that she strongly thought and felt it was "her turn" in the Democratic Party. Her arrogance twisted and gamed the primary to her favour, there is no question. But the party that is more complicit in twisting and gaming electoral politics in their favour (e.g. gerrymandering and various voter laws) is the GOP. If there really is a party that arrogantly believes it is the "natural ruling party of the US" then by their actions it is far more arguably the GOP. Hillary's remark not long after her defeat that she knew "they would never let [her] win" hints at this.

Frankly from what little I know of this QAnon conspiracy it all strikes me as projection more than anything else.

The difference is that GOP voters know there is a divide between the Dem and the GOP voters and how they see America. The GOP voters worry how far the dems will go down the socialist path and want to rein them in. The Dem voters appear to believe that there is no other path to follow other than their own, any other opinions are invalid.

 

[beirnini]

The difference is that GOP voters know there is a divide between the Dem and the GOP voters and how they see America. The GOP voters worry how far the dems will go down the socialist path and want to rein them in. The Dem voters appear to believe that there is no other path to follow other than their own, any other opinions are invalid.

Paths and opinions other than those by and from Democrats are allegedly invalid, but it's the GOP that is most complicit in gerrymandering and passing restrictive voter laws, and who presume a controlling position to "rein in" their fellow Americans. Interesting. You don't see that as arrogant?

 

[beirnini]

While I really have no idea of what to make of this "Q" stuff, McCarthy was very correct about Communist infiltration of the US government, and there is plenty of modern historiography to demonstrate it. Not every conspiracy theory is "crazy".

If we're going to legitimize past conspiracies we would be remiss if we didn't mention the attempted fascist coup over FDR thwarted by Major General Smedly Butler as well. Not every conspiracy theory is "crazy", nor is it always socialist. In fact the so-called "Deep State" finds a far better analogue in what Butler faced down than what scared McCarthy.

As for "Q", I suggest we watch how things proceed and see how well they match up with the cryptic utterances. I suspect it is something like Nostradamus: you can read whatever you want in there.

So which is it? Maybe not crazy or cryptic Nostradamus nonsense? Either way, casual dismissal such as this would be fine if the President himself didn't take regular counsel from and lavish praise upon one of this conspiracy's primary believers and disseminaters in Alex Jones.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Paths and opinions other than those by and from Democrats are allegedly invalid, but it's the GOP that is most complicit in gerrymandering and passing restrictive voter laws, and who presume a controlling position to "rein in" their fellow Americans. Interesting. You don't see that as arrogant?

Sadly the majority of left to centre people I talk to can't fathom that there is any other way then their way and since it's so wrapped up in their view of themselves, a disagreement or attack on their ideas, becomes an attack upon themselves. I would say that a good half of the people that I work with, family and people I interact with are left of centre. I have some quite right of centre friends who are similar, but generally I find the people right of centre don't find a disagreement on ideas as an attack on themselves.

 

[a_majoor]

If we're going to legitimize past conspiracies we would be remiss if we didn't mention the attempted fascist coup over FDR thwarted by Major General Smedly Butler as well. Not every conspiracy theory is "crazy", nor is it always socialist. In fact the so-called "Deep State" finds a far better analogue in what Butler faced down than what scared McCarthy.
So which is it? Maybe not crazy or cryptic Nostradamus nonsense? Either way, casual dismissal such as this would be fine if the President himself didn't take regular counsel from and lavish praise upon one of this conspiracy's primary believers and disseminaters in Alex Jones.

Nothing wrong with looking at proper historiography to see and understand real conspiracy theories. Like I said, I don't know what to make of "Q" and the cryptic utterances-is it a real conspiracy theory or someone playing strange games?

President Trump plays all kinds of games to screen what he is up to and to appeal to his base/rile up his detractors. I don't see anything the President does either confirming or denying "Q", you are looking at Nostradamus through a heavy smoke screen at this point.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The folks over at Vox did an analysis of all QAnon users on Reddit and produced a detailed report that can be found here. Note report is long and contains lots of graphs.

In a nutshell they found that:

But here’s the kicker: An astoundingly small number of people produce the majority of the content. About 200 users account for a quarter of the forum’s comments. These people are clearly conspiracy theorists who believe they are investigators unearthing the truth, and they spend almost all their time on Reddit investigating these theories.

Another 700 users account for the next quarter of comments. The user we followed at the top of this story is among these people. They are active in /r/greatawakening but also spend time on other subreddits.

Nearly everyone else in the subreddit — the 11,000 commenters and 42,000 lurkers — are just along for the ride.