What has happened here is the fake news MSM needed to label Q and Q followers with something that can be easily searched so they can dish out propaganda hit pieces to anyone interested because searching for the single letter “Q” would not be unique enough to dish out propaganda on the topic.
If Q had started out saying we are all known as QAnon, and then changed his mind later saying there is no Qanon, then I would agree with you. But that didn’t happen.
But the word anon is already in more common use and doesn't mean one is necessarily into Q. What you're saying is true from one angle but to someone who isn't in that circle it's untrue. That's how they legitimately cognitively distinguish between the two
Even languages have grammatical rules and words have definitions. Sometimes words have multiple definitions which require context to determine what a word means in a sentence, but the context is derived from using the grammatical rules which are not subjective.
So here we have a case where the media created a new term for a group of people and created a definition for the word which isn’t true about that group of people. The group of people have every right to say that word and definition does not apply to them and reject it as false because it is false and is not true.
I don’t see the parallel.
What has happened here is the fake news MSM needed to label Q and Q followers with something that can be easily searched so they can dish out propaganda hit pieces to anyone interested because searching for the single letter “Q” would not be unique enough to dish out propaganda on the topic.
If Q had started out saying we are all known as QAnon, and then changed his mind later saying there is no Qanon, then I would agree with you. But that didn’t happen.
But the word anon is already in more common use and doesn't mean one is necessarily into Q. What you're saying is true from one angle but to someone who isn't in that circle it's untrue. That's how they legitimately cognitively distinguish between the two
Truth is truth no matter what angle you look at it from.
Just because someone believes a falsehood about something doesn’t change the truth of that thing.
That's true for like science and facts but language is symbolic and necessarily subjective and fluid. It's collective not objective
I would argue against that stance.
Even languages have grammatical rules and words have definitions. Sometimes words have multiple definitions which require context to determine what a word means in a sentence, but the context is derived from using the grammatical rules which are not subjective.
So here we have a case where the media created a new term for a group of people and created a definition for the word which isn’t true about that group of people. The group of people have every right to say that word and definition does not apply to them and reject it as false because it is false and is not true.