I like to spend time on reddit. I think it’s really interesting how communites can develop and spread thoughts. One of the things I dislike about it heavily is that it throttles responses. After you respond a few times they force you into basically letting the “mob” of a subreddit comment and comment and comment, but silence you. So while you’re able to read their replies, you’re unable to respond. To the extent someone responds to a post you made, you should be able to respond, at least once, without any time limit.
So below is an example of a discussion where I was in a subreddit dedicated to debunking Q. This is a topic I find quite interesting and people are passionate about it. Because in the rules for the group it states it exists to “debunk” “Q”, I expected it to be an echo chamber.
Reddit user “youre un-American” refuses to engage in what I would consider rules of “fair” discussion. The full context of the thread is linked below, but what I find most frustrating is that the discussion can’t even start with a few agreed points. For example, this user contends that “QAnon” does not exist. He uses a reference to the Bible. In an attempt to find common ground, I point out that the Bible in fact not only exists, but has multiple variations and competing theologies. In order to have an honest discussion about “The Bible”, we would have to first start by defining what “The Bible” is. Is it the KJV? Is it the NIV? What exactly is “The Bible”.
At this point I believe #QAnon is made up of such a wide variety of ideologies it is still at the stage of “finding it’s way”.
I actually really enjoyed the discussion with the folks in this subreddit a lot more than I expected.
> if you say something doesn’t exist
Qanon isn’t real. It’s not a real person, it’s not a government insider, it’s not a magical space fairy that protects you from the devil, it’s not. fuckin’. real.
> You contradict
Nope, that’s a YOU problem.
> Which bible?
This is, again, transparent deflection. ALL bibles are false, all bibles contain literal fabrications. You don’t get to use the Bible as evidence that the things in the Bible are true. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
> So when We have one person believed to be 13 people believed to be running a military information/disinformation campaign, it seems to me like the most reasonable way to go about understanding what Q is and what QAnon is starts by segmenting the dogmas/teachings/theologies of each of the different groups.
This is, entirely, without evidence. Nothing you just said has literally ANY veracity. Qanon is fake.
> I have my own research that leads me to about four different narratives.
Your “research” is faulty and based on literal fabrications.
> For example, I have spent a lot of time with people who don’t like being public.
This entire paragraph is meaningless. I don’t mean that facetiously. There wasn’t a single substantive argument made in its entirety.
> I’m actually working to try to bring all of the “right” theories and/or ideologies into a single “sect” as it were.
What you’re doing is perpetuating literal propaganda that has not one single shred of evidence to support it.
If there WAS evidence, you’d provide it. But you won’t, because you can’t, because it doesn’t fuckin’ exist.
> So QAnon exists.
Literally does not. Not as an extant figure, not as a point of evidence, not as a valid argument.
> anyone purporting to be doing violence in the name of QAnon, is either a bad actor or just heavily confused
Except for the literal dozens of self-described qanon followers that commit constant acts of politically-motivated violence.
This is a No True Scotsman fallacy and it’s INCREDIBLY embarrassing.
> If a multimillion(sic) person movement was violent, they’d be burning down car dealerships in Wisconsin.
Oh look, another transparent deflection. “HURR WHATABOUT” is not now, nor has it ever been, a valid argument.
You asked for examples of violence. I provided you SEVERAL EXPLICIT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE QANON CULTISTS WERE VIOLENT, MURDEROUS SHEEP.
You’re a clown baby in a literal cult and your inability to acknowledge fact is stunting any chance of a valid argument from you.