I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.
It took us thousands of years to develop mechanics, let alone quantum mechanics.
If scientists went with your approach then we wouldn't have either, because any musing about "imaginary" particles (pun intended) were completely incapable of producing any predictions for the longest time.
Furthermore, Q is not a scientific experiment, nor are we studying a force of nature. If the purpose is mentioned as communications with plausible deniability, then that necessarily implies absence of an easily decryptable blueprint to predict future events. As such, inability to predict future events, especially with insufficient effort exerted, implies little to nothing. Certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I know for fact that you can disprove Q as little as I can prove it and I don't expect or intend for anything to come out of this other than satisfying my curiosity.
As such, my question remains: What is the most compelling piece of evidence or argument that you have seen? I understand that nothing has convinced you, and in fact it seems like you believe to know that Q is a larp.
Even with that in mind, there is a hierarchy to the quality of different pieces of evidence.
I am asking for a a handful of pieces of highest quality that you have come across.
It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.
So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.
There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.
Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.
So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.
So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.
I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.
EDIT: Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like, but even though I have a bad habit of getting sucked into longer conversations than I intend, I do have some other stuff to do today. If you don’t hear from me on this soon, remind me.
So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway
I am asking for instances of evidence, e.g. microscopic proofs as you call them.
Based on which you choose it could help illuminate why you're tilted the way you are.
An overall statistical proof always consists of multiple smaller estimators. The quality of those hence heavily influences the quality of your "overall estimator" (or "proof").
Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like
I am not sure how that would relate to Q in any capacity. Unless I missed something, neither Georgia, nor suitcases of ballots, were in any way part of the Q drops.
So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.
I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.
I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.
The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.
The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.
The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.
However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.
When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.
And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.
This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.
But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.
Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.
It's assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions, and if any of those individual assumptions is proven wrong, you can remain confident that even if one assumption was wrong, your other assumptions haven't been addressed yet, because there are a fucking million pieces of evidence you consider part of Q world.
In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.
So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.
I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.
It took us thousands of years to develop mechanics, let alone quantum mechanics.
If scientists went with your approach then we wouldn't have either, because any musing about "imaginary" particles (pun intended) were completely incapable of producing any predictions for the longest time.
Furthermore, Q is not a scientific experiment, nor are we studying a force of nature. If the purpose is mentioned as communications with plausible deniability, then that necessarily implies absence of an easily decryptable blueprint to predict future events. As such, inability to predict future events, especially with insufficient effort exerted, implies little to nothing. Certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I know for fact that you can disprove Q as little as I can prove it and I don't expect or intend for anything to come out of this other than satisfying my curiosity.
As such, my question remains: What is the most compelling piece of evidence or argument that you have seen? I understand that nothing has convinced you, and in fact it seems like you believe to know that Q is a larp.
Even with that in mind, there is a hierarchy to the quality of different pieces of evidence.
I am asking for a a handful of pieces of highest quality that you have come across.
It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.
So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.
There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.
Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.
So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.
So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.
I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.
EDIT: Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like, but even though I have a bad habit of getting sucked into longer conversations than I intend, I do have some other stuff to do today. If you don’t hear from me on this soon, remind me.
I am asking for instances of evidence, e.g. microscopic proofs as you call them.
Based on which you choose it could help illuminate why you're tilted the way you are.
An overall statistical proof always consists of multiple smaller estimators. The quality of those hence heavily influences the quality of your "overall estimator" (or "proof").
I am not sure how that would relate to Q in any capacity. Unless I missed something, neither Georgia, nor suitcases of ballots, were in any way part of the Q drops.
Let me think on it.
So I did some thinking on it, and again, it's tough to come up with an answer to this. I also don't believe in flat earth, so asking me to come up with evidence I find compelling about flat earth isn't easy, because I am utterly unconvinced of flat earth, and I am utterly unconvinced of Q.
I brought up the Georgia video, because I think it's helpful for understanding how I approach evidence. For many people here, it's considered a "smoking gun" for election fraud.
I don't see it that way, because when I watch the video, I don't see proof of fraud.
The video has no sound, so I can't hear any proof that the observers were asked to leave. I can see someone take a case out of under the table, but can't tell whether it's an uncertified container or not. I can see people scan a piece of paper more than once, but I can't verify it's a ballot, nor can I verify that scanning a ballot more than once would count the vote more than once.
The fact is that when I watch the video, I can't see anything other than people counting ballots. I can't rule out that they're committing fraud, but nothing in the video proves it.
The strength of this "smoking gun" in Q world can't come from the video, because I watched the video and saw no direct proof of fraud.
However, I watched it with the sound off, because there was no audio from the video directly.
When I turned the sound on, I heard a disembodied voice narrating to me that the counters told the observer to leave, and then pulled out secret ballots and scanned them multiple times to commit fraud.
And with the voice running, that is certainly more convincing proof. But the voice doesn't get to tell me what's happening on a video without audio. I am not going to trust someone to interpret this for me. And therefore, when I watch it without the sound, the narrative evaporates, and I'm left watching a boring security film of people counting ballots.
This is frustrating to Q people, because I'm evaluating the evidence on its own, when Q people assure me the only way to see the proof of Q is to put it all together. Maybe the video doesn't look bad on its own, but if you consider this, and this, and this, and also this Q post which matches up perfectly as a delta, then fraud is obvious.
But that's not the way I approach evidence, because that's bringing assumptions and implication into objective analysis.
Because if I assume that this video is MORE LIKELY to show fraud because, say, it matches up with a delta, but the delta is in reality a coincidence, then I'm considering this video to be evidence based on a faulty assumption. And then the next thing I evaluate, I'll do so with the Georgia video as evidence, based on the faulty delta, and collect even more nonsense evidence, which itself is based off of faulty assumptions.
It's assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions supporting assumptions, and if any of those individual assumptions is proven wrong, you can remain confident that even if one assumption was wrong, your other assumptions haven't been addressed yet, because there are a fucking million pieces of evidence you consider part of Q world.
In essence, the Q theory has become so nebulous and decentralized that literally ALL of your evidence can be faulty, but as long as you haven't figured that out about, say, a delta, then every piece of faulty evidence that is "supported" by that delta is falsely supported and adds strength to further faulty evidence.
So I get why things like deltas appear convincing, and why firehosing nonbelievers with the "micro-evidence" is appealing. I get why people who already believe the election was stolen or that Trump is in charge or that celebrities are eating children would accept things like deltas or vague prophecies or weird mathematical coincidences as just more and more and more proof.
But I can't really think that way.