I apologize, it took me far longer than I intended to respond. Schedule changes at work tend to play havoc with my Q time, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging.
I'm going to try to respond to main points so my fingers don't fall off. I hope I don't miss anything you intended to hear.
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
We're in complete agreement here. The term "conspiracy theory" carries undeniable negative tone, but I have always tried to use it neutrally. It's a theory that a conspiracy exists. There's nothing insane about distrusting the narrative.
As much as some would object to my saying this, I try to take a very Socratic approach to understanding Q stuff (and non-Q stuff, for that matter). It can come off as combative, but it's really about understanding how someone deals with arguments from any particular perspective. THAT is definitely something I can get behind, and it is an ideal I think most Q people would share with me.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
My own theory (so far) is that conspiracy theorists have an overturned pattern recognition system. That DOES give them the potential to see things that other people aren't, like a valid conspiracy, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that all the patterns they recognize are actually valid. I think conspiracy theorists can see pictures in clouds better than most, but clouds are still random data.
I'm not yet convinced (by results over the years, mostly) that Q isn't a particularly interesting cloud picture yet. I may be proven wrong eventually, but to your point, it's not my inability to believe in a conspiracy that is preventing me from signing on to Q. I've been hanging out with conspiracy theorists for most of my life, and rarely in any combative role.
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
It's true that there is some variability in Q beliefs, but there are definitely some areas where Q supporters typically don't invest heavy research on these boards, and these typically are in areas which could provide an answer that would actually destroy faith in the Q movement.
For instance, how long has it been since this board make an honest attempt to unmask Q? An identity of the fingers typing those words would either drastically support or drastically deflate the Q movement, no middle ground. Most Q people seem content to assume that it's impossible for anyone to figure out, and if it's NOT impossible, then they don't want to risk Q's cover.
Which, conveniently, means that Q people aren't interested in PROVING one of the only falsifiable beliefs about Q: that Q represents a person or persons that has access and authority to make the kinds of claims that Q made, and to carry out a Plan.
Luckily, Q is on my side here. Look up how many times he says "transparency is the only way." (2817, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc)
It's more often than he talks about the military being the only way, so why are people here only focused on that? And not Q being transparent? Since transparency is the only way?
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well.
I understand why you feel it's unfair, but regardless of where you started, it seems hard to reconcile the world that this board wants (and the world Q said he was saving) has anything in common with liberal values.
People change their politics as they age and go through life changes. It's not unusual. I have been around a long while, and have yet to meet anyone with strong liberal values hoping that Donald Trump is coming back to power with a secret military.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
I feel like this would be true if these ideas were impossible to access without higher education. But they aren't. Anybody can read the documents and make their own judgement about the ten-dollar words in them.
It's true that higher degrees are valued in academia, but almost every PhD has research published that you can review. If you think someone is a hack, you're able to literally download their work and publish your own dissection.
This isn't about money. "Intellectual superiority" only exists when you can't access the same source material as the intellectuals, and in the vast majority of cases, you absolutely can.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
To be fair, what you've said here is that conditioning is the same thing as brainwashing. Which I disagree with.
Conditioning has a negative connotation, but it literally just means that someone learns to respond to a stimulus a certain way. This is how we learn things.
If I train a child to finish their dinner by offering dessert, I am conditioning them to eat their whole meal before spoiling their appetite. I guess this COULD be described as brainwashing, but that seems absurd.
So, grooming, brainwashing, learning? These are all just forms of conditioning. You can't define these things simply by recognizing conditioning. You identify harm. And while you may have feelings about how rejecting biological gender roles may cause harm, you certainly can't claim that it's the kind of harm that pedophiles cause by conditioning children to be receptive to being raped.
I don't have the time or will to get into a debate about transgender stuff, as it's not really in the Q stuff that I'm interested in. But I will say, based on my perspective, that Q people tend to generalize literally any event that happens outside of the conservative sphere as "liberal values."
So liberals get stuck with "our values" somehow being supporting child drag contests and forced sex reassignment surgeries just because some Twitter person wanted to post a headline to piss you off and collect conservative clicks. No rank-and-file liberal voter supports coercing a child into sexual reassignment surgery, and I've never met one that would support such surgery on a child.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
Around here, it's common for me to be told to stop believing TV reality.
So, I'd like to, more respectfully, suggest something similar.
Non-binary people are interesting. Some people find them fascinating. Some people find them revolting. Some people feel better for supporting them. Some people will post memes about how irritating it all is. But they are also pretty rare, as an identity.
And despite that, just like liberals, you're talking about the individuals on that television screen, simply because they're non-binary. Which was the point of the station hiring them in the first place.
Liberals aren't ignorant to this. We know that most companies posting pride flags on Twitter don't give a shit. We know that some flamboyant androgynous YouTuber is getting famous merely because he's weird and stupid, and that's frustrating for everyone. We're all getting old and these kids are too weird for us.
At the end of the day, the companies are going to put on television what people will watch on television, and people are going to watch on television the stuff that they don't encounter in real life. Which, typically, are going to be outliers. The vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone and, frankly, for you to not even know they were trans.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
I agree here. And I'll make a similar statement, easily, that truth is far more important to me than any imagined allegiance I've been accused of. I couldn't give less of a shit what position Reddit is supporting, or the Democrats are supporting, or whatever.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this. So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I also still disagree that Q is as cosmopolitan of a movement as you would have me believe. There are definitely forces working to make elite/non-elite class struggles look like racial struggles or political struggles. No question.
But I don't see the Q movement as a fight for "everyone." It's a conservative movement. Trump's positions are politically conservative, and the only people hoping that he is coming back are people who agree with him.
If there is eventually some unimpeachable proof released that demonstrates Trump's proven electoral victory and all the other stuff that Q promised, then a lot of liberals (like me) will eat shit and accept it.
But this Q stuff is a lot of work, and staying motivated long enough to DO that research requires a significant amount of hope and faith that you weren't wrong about Donald Trump. Liberals have no such hope of Trump's competency, and thus, aren't going to be motivated to run the gauntlet.
Which leaves us with this movement being mostly hopeful conservatives, right?
I have no choice but to be extremely suspicious of any political movement that is claiming to be fighting for a non-political truth on my behalf. Wouldn't you?
And my goodness, this is probably the longest thing I've written on here. I hope it's coherent, because I've been writing it for like an hour now and I'm not proofreading it. I apologize if anything comes off as unclear. I'm fucking exhausted and need to take an actual break from today.
Take care.
I apologize, it took me far longer than I intended to respond. Schedule changes at work tend to play havoc with my Q time.
I'm going to try to respond to main points so my fingers don't fall off. I hope I don't miss anything you intended to hear.
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
We're in complete agreement here. The term "conspiracy theory" carries undeniable negative tone, but I have always tried to use it neutrally. It's a theory that a conspiracy exists. There's nothing insane about distrusting the narrative.
As much as some would object to my saying this, I try to take a very Socratic approach to understanding Q stuff (and non-Q stuff, for that matter). It can come off as combative, but it's really about understanding how someone deals with arguments from any particular perspective. THAT is definitely something I can get behind, and it is an ideal I think most Q people would share with me.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
My own theory (so far) is that conspiracy theorists have an overturned pattern recognition system. That DOES give them the potential to see things that other people aren't, like a valid conspiracy, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that all the patterns they recognize are actually valid. I think conspiracy theorists can see pictures in clouds better than most, but clouds are still random data.
I'm not yet convinced (by results over the years, mostly) that Q isn't a particularly interesting cloud picture yet. I may be proven wrong eventually, but to your point, it's not my inability to believe in a conspiracy that is preventing me from signing on to Q. I've been hanging out with conspiracy theorists for most of my life, and rarely in any combative role.
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
It's true that there is some variability in Q beliefs, but there are definitely some areas where Q supporters typically don't invest heavy research on these boards, and these typically are in areas which could provide an answer that would actually destroy faith in the Q movement.
For instance, how long has it been since this board make an honest attempt to unmask Q? An identity of the fingers typing those words would either drastically support or drastically deflate the Q movement, no middle ground. Most Q people seem content to assume that it's impossible for anyone to figure out, and if it's NOT impossible, then they don't want to risk Q's cover.
Which, conveniently, means that Q people aren't interested in PROVING one of the only falsifiable beliefs about Q: that Q represents a person or persons that has access and authority to make the kinds of claims that Q made, and to carry out a Plan.
Luckily, Q is on my side here. Look up how many times he says "transparency is the only way." (2817, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc)
It's more often than he talks about the military being the only way, so why are people here only focused on that? And not Q being transparent? Since transparency is the only way?
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well.
I understand why you feel it's unfair, but regardless of where you started, it seems hard to reconcile the world that this board wants (and the world Q said he was saving) has anything in common with liberal values.
People change their politics as they age and go through life changes. It's not unusual. I have been around a long while, and have yet to meet anyone with strong liberal values hoping that Donald Trump is coming back to power with a secret military.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
I feel like this would be true if these ideas were impossible to access without higher education. But they aren't. Anybody can read the documents and make their own judgement about the ten-dollar words in them.
It's true that higher degrees are valued in academia, but almost every PhD has research published that you can review. If you think someone is a hack, you're able to literally download their work and publish your own dissection.
This isn't about money. "Intellectual superiority" only exists when you can't access the same source material as the intellectuals, and in the vast majority of cases, you absolutely can.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
To be fair, what you've said here is that conditioning is the same thing as brainwashing. Which I disagree with.
Conditioning has a negative connotation, but it literally just means that someone learns to respond to a stimulus a certain way. This is how we learn things.
If I train a child to finish their dinner by offering dessert, I am conditioning them to eat their whole meal before spoiling their appetite. I guess this COULD be described as brainwashing, but that seems absurd.
So, grooming, brainwashing, learning? These are all just forms of conditioning. You can't define these things simply by recognizing conditioning. You identify harm. And while you may have feelings about how rejecting biological gender roles may cause harm, you certainly can't claim that it's the kind of harm that pedophiles cause by conditioning children to be receptive to being raped.
I don't have the time or will to get into a debate about transgender stuff, as it's not really in the Q stuff that I'm interested in. But I will say, based on my perspective, that Q people tend to generalize literally any event that happens outside of the conservative sphere as "liberal values."
So liberals get stuck with "our values" somehow being supporting child drag contests and forced sex reassignment surgeries just because some Twitter person wanted to post a headline to piss you off and collect conservative clicks. No rank-and-file liberal voter supports coercing a child into sexual reassignment surgery, and I've never met one that would support such surgery on a child.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
Around here, it's common for me to be told to stop believing TV reality.
So, I'd like to, more respectfully, suggest something similar.
Non-binary people are interesting. Some people find them fascinating. Some people find them revolting. Some people feel better for supporting them. Some people will post memes about how irritating it all is. But they are also pretty rare, as an identity.
And despite that, just like liberals, you're talking about the individuals on that television screen, simply because they're non-binary. Which was the point of the station hiring them in the first place.
Liberals aren't ignorant to this. We know that most companies posting pride flags on Twitter don't give a shit. We know that some flamboyant androgynous YouTuber is getting famous merely because he's weird and stupid, and that's frustrating for everyone. We're all getting old and these kids are too weird for us.
At the end of the day, the companies are going to put on television what people will watch on television, and people are going to watch on television the stuff that they don't encounter in real life. Which, typically, are going to be outliers. The vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone and, frankly, for you to not even know they were trans.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
I agree here. And I'll make a similar statement, easily, that truth is far more important to me than any imagined allegiance I've been accused of. I couldn't give less of a shit what position Reddit is supporting, or the Democrats are supporting, or whatever.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this. So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I also still disagree that Q is as cosmopolitan of a movement as you would have me believe. There are definitely forces working to make elite/non-elite class struggles look like racial struggles or political struggles. No question.
But I don't see the Q movement as a fight for "everyone." It's a conservative movement. Trump's positions are politically conservative, and the only people hoping that he is coming back are people who agree with him.
If there is eventually some unimpeachable proof released that demonstrates Trump's proven electoral victory and all the other stuff that Q promised, then a lot of liberals (like me) will eat shit and accept it.
But this Q stuff is a lot of work, and staying motivated long enough to DO that research requires a significant amount of hope and faith that you weren't wrong about Donald Trump. Liberals have no such hope of Trump's competency, and thus, aren't going to be motivated to run the gauntlet.
Which leaves us with this movement being mostly hopeful conservatives, right?
I have no choice but to be extremely suspicious of any political movement that is claiming to be fighting for a non-political truth on my behalf. Wouldn't you?
And my goodness, this is probably the longest thing I've written on here. I hope it's coherent, because I've been writing it for like an hour now and I'm not proofreading it. I apologize if anything comes off as unclear. I'm fucking exhausted and need to take an actual break from today.
Take care.