I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
The world used to have ZERO logic in it because of the lack of a system with logical gates and values.
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
Communist. Satanist. How many fucking times do we have to tell you this?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?
For the first article, what you’ve found is a therapist who fucked up. You will get no argument from me that there are incompetent therapists and ones who drop the ball. It’s a big field, and mentally unstable people are an unpredictable group of people.
Is there any evidence in this story (or any other related documents) that prove this therapist deliberately allowed or encouraged this violence to happen?
How have you ruled out this being a therapist who fucked up? How would you know if it was or wasn’t, besides faith that Q said there is something being hidden here?
For the second article, I’m confused. Can you show me where in the article it says that therapists handed over their information to the FBI in order to target this young man?
It says they knew he was schizophrenic. It also says that he was declared legally incompetent and hospitalized numerous times, which would be recorded in legal records, not just medical records.
In fact, the parents blame legal records people, or someone associated with them. They don’t mention a therapist.
The State of Oklahoma found him mentally incompetent and we, his parents have legal guardianship over him by the Court. These documents are sealed from the public, which is why no news media outlet has been able to obtain them.
These types of records would go far beyond the patient records of a therapist.
FBI have access to legal records, and frankly, I can tell you from experience that people with untreated schizophrenia are not exactly hard to identify. They had an informant talking to him. Of course they knew he was mentally ill.
If you’re trying to bait me into defending the FBI targeting mentally ill people… good luck.
Why do you assume merely by the FBI having information about a legally-relevant and super-obvious psychiatric condition that it must have been a result of a betrayal by this therapist?
Is it because Q suggested this as a research avenue, and you have faith in Q’s theory of a conspiracy involving these therapists?
These are the sorts of assumptions I don’t make, but I think they’re easier to make if someone you trust, like Q, told you to look closely.
I am willing to examine the claims of sources I do not trust, but if you said that Q researchers have provided the Hard Proof for Q’s claims on this, I’d still like to see that.
I don’t even see evidence that either of these therapists were Satanist or Communist. Can you provide that proof, at least? Have the Q researchers found proof of these two therapists’ allegiances to Satan?
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?
For the first article, what you’ve found is a therapist who fucked up. You will get no argument from me that there are incompetent therapists and ones who drop the ball. It’s a big field, and mentally unstable people are an unpredictable group of people.
Is there any evidence in this story (or any other related documents) that prove this therapist deliberately allowed or encouraged this violence to happen?
How have you ruled out this being a therapist who fucked up? How would you know if it was or wasn’t, besides faith that Q said there is something being hidden here?
For the second article, I’m confused. Can you show me where in the article it says that therapists handed over their information to the FBI in order to target this young man?
It says they knew he was schizophrenic. It also says that he was declared legally incompetent and hospitalized numerous times, which would be recorded in legal records, not just medical records.
In fact, the parents blame legal records people, or someone associated with them. They don’t mention a therapist.
These types of records would go far beyond the patient records of a therapist.
FBI have access to legal records, and frankly, I can tell you from experience that people with untreated schizophrenia are not exactly hard to identify. They had an informant talking to him. Of course they knew he was mentally ill.
If you’re trying to bait me into defending the FBI targeting mentally ill people… good luck.
Why do you assume merely by the FBI having information about a legally-relevant and super-obvious psychiatric condition that it must have been a result of a betrayal by this therapist?
Is it because Q suggested this as a research avenue, and you have faith in Q’s theory of a conspiracy involving these therapists?
These are the sorts of assumptions I don’t make, but I think they’re easier to make if someone you trust, like Q, told you to look closely.
I am willing to examine the claims of sources I do not trust, but if you said that Q researchers have provided the Hard Proof for Q’s claims on this, I’d still like to see that.
I don’t even see evidence that either of these therapists were Satanist or Communist. Can you provide that proof, at least? Have the Q researchers found proof of these two therapists’ allegiances to Satan?