Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are the similarities and differences between 'Q' haters and Ayn Rand haters?

Rate this topic


Jon Letendre

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Biden is corrupt and that the FBI lied to you , so what would you have done the day after ?

This whole thing indicates that the current governmental system can be corrupt in a way that can be understood by the layperson.

Biden is corrupt. Biden was corrupt. But so was Trump. So not much would have changed. It just show that if Biden had not done it, Trump would have. Now that it can be proven pretty conclusively, the hope is that Biden will go away … it is their age that will make Biden, Trump and Putin go away, not any of this. Corruption is here to stay, probably all of my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individuals can be corrupt and can conspire with other individuals to facilitate a corrupt scheme , but this example in particular shows the corruption has overtaken the institutions designed to root out the corruption of individuals.

The FBI and the DoJ are here shown to have covered up the evidence of corruption that would have barred Biden from becoming President.

It is prima facie evidence that Biden sells his political influence as an office holder for personal gain and for whatever reasons the federal government censored the information , but .. what ? that's just the staus quo and it's here to stay ?

Btw , what are some specific examples of Trump's corruption while in office ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Btw , what are some specific examples of Trump's corruption while in office ?

I seem to recall something about Trump inviting foreign dignitaries to stay in hotels he owned, which was a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

(I don't think this rises to the level of what Biden has been doing, though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of the Emoluments clause was originally to guard against foreign nationals 'gifting' US office holders monies/properties and 'buying' influence.

Operating a for profit business some of which revenue may be generated by foreign nationals doing business with you is a different animal. Trump started the hotel project in DC in 2014 in the hospitality/property/real estate industry , the career he pursued his entire public life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The intent of the Emoluments clause was originally to guard against foreign nationals 'gifting' US office holders monies/properties and 'buying' influence.

Operating a for profit business some of which revenue may be generated by foreign nationals doing business with you is a different animal. Trump started the hotel project in DC in 2014 in the hospitality/property/real estate industry , the career he pursued his entire public life. 

 

In my book, public representatives should 

1. never profit from holding Office in any way other than perhaps the same benefits everyone enjoys by virtue of the correct administration of a proper government, the upholding of the Constitution, rule of law, etc.

2. never hold any public position for more than 2 terms.

 

Those who "need" a salary should be given one which is no more than the lesser of 

1 the average of what they had earned as salary in the private sector over the past 5 years.

2 some cap which limits the salary to a reasonable recompense for public service.

 

In the grand scheme of things, I tend to trust politicians who appear not to have profited from their time in office, or from their having held a position in office, from deals made in office, or from lectures tours, books etc. which are possible only because of the notoriety of holding office rather than any other substantive reason, or any success they had pre-politics.

 

There seems to be a class of politician who is and has achieved nothing in the real world, but who personally gains a vastly proportionally larger sum of wealth by virtue only of their having gone into politics and what they have "done" in connection therewith,

verses others in politics, who seem more interested in serving the people, and protecting their rights, and afterward getting back to real life.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the believers became unhinged after following , or that unhingedness is a necessary condition of following?

I'm a fan in that I like the idea of white hatters and I believe "Q" as a person or group of people posted to a forum. But I don't believe that 'bad guys' have been removed and replaced with body doubles, and frankly don't understand how having doubles continue doing bad serves a good purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I'm a fan in that I like the idea of white hatters and I believe "Q" as a person or group of people posted to a forum.

So what?

Being a fan of some intermittent/random fact generator doesn't give it credibility. Like saying I am a fan of Astrology or numerology. If I am a fan of avoiding the number "13", it does not make it more respectable to avoid that number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as a fan , not a 'believer', I'd say Q is more right than wrong and I appreciate the memetic resonance in whatever proportion of society that became ''red pilled" as a consequence of the phenomenon.

Q is right in that there is a demonic cabal seemingly intent on sacrificing children, the real world example has played out in the US in the covid response. De-facto vaccine mandates , the lockdowns and forced masking has done incredible harm to children physically and psychologically.

I'd rather my neighbors had yard signs that say "Q sent me" , than those that say "Trust the Science".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Well as a fan , not a 'believer', I'd say Q is more right than wrong and I appreciate the memetic resonance in whatever proportion of society that became ''red pilled" as a consequence of the phenomenon.

What is being a fan supposed to mean? I'm a fan of Q but I only mean that in the sense "this is weird and bizarre and means little about reality but it's pretty fun and I really hope it's a psyops campaign aimed at weeding out violent fringe lunatics". 

To say that Q is right is to say that you are a believer, even a little bit.  What it got people to do is become arbitrarily skeptical of just about everything, and those that believed any extent had opened their minds to arbitrary speculations as being just as legitimate as speculations made with evidence. I can't say that Q is right or wrong, the statements don't mean anything. 

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

De-facto vaccine mandates , the lockdowns and forced masking has done incredible harm to children physically and psychologically.

There is no evidence of these things ("incredible harm") which isn't to say that none of these things are bad. De facto vaccine mandates are fine (where you are not legally bound to get a vaccine) because it is pretty well established that vaccines are safe as a whole. Besides, all of these things the US are voluntary! So really, even your Q-lite beliefs reflect pretty well the mindset of Q believers. Most of the kinds of questions people ask about vaccine safety or the efficacy of certain measures are either arbitrary or are poorly phrased questions. It's why there is a significant overlap with Q believers. It's a kind of epistemological melting. "Trust the science" people of the same way, except the fortunate thing is that there are people involved with the science that are able to think clearly and ask legitimately skeptical questions, even research things you talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Most of the kinds of questions people ask about vaccine safety or the efficacy of certain measures are either arbitrary or are poorly phrased questions. "

Is it arbitrary skepticism to question the validity of a mass inoculation stance during the first 'wave' of infection in a population?

Is it arbitrary skepticism to question assertions of safety of an untested medical intervention?

Is it arbitrary skepticism to recognize forced masking is detrimental to early childhood development, the consequences of which may very well lead to long term cognitive damages?

I think the mind virus to be more wary of than Q or Q adjacent thinking, is(are) the one(s) generated by fear that caused rational people to evade the responsibility of thinking and unquestioningly accept the argument from authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very big difference between a vaccine that has a 20-year (or longer) track record of safety, and one that uses a never-before-used technique (mRNA) and was given to people -- and then mandated -- while it was still highly experimental. (They even had to change the definition of "vaccine" for it.) It is a mistake to package-deal these two things, but there is still a big insistence that you're either "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine" and there is no room for being in favor of some vaccines but not others. (There's also a package-deal obscuring the notion that one can support vaccines but oppose mandates. Vaccines are science, but mandates are politics.)

It's also a mistake to say that people either agree with Q (and those invalid epistemological methods) or they don't. If Q says that 2+2=4, am I, as a rational person, obligated to deny it? If I don't deny that 2+2=4, am I then a Q supporter? (Of course it's a question of why 2+2=4, not merely that it is.)

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Q is right in that there is a demonic cabal seemingly intent on sacrificing children, the real world example has played out in the US in the covid response. De-facto vaccine mandates , the lockdowns and forced masking has done incredible harm to children physically and psychologically.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-loneliest-generation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Is it arbitrary skepticism...

And I said "or poorly phrased questions". The way you ask a question in science matters, or if you ask a very general question, you need to understand the limitations of your question. So even if people are skeptical of something for legitimate reasons, the problem comes in when people don't know how to interpret research findings. 

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

caused rational people to evade the responsibility of thinking and unquestioningly accept the argument from authority.

I mean, part of the issue there is that a lot of the time, accusing others of "unquestioning acceptance of authority" reveals an inability to correctly interpret evidence, in a way that you think other people are reaching conclusions before they should. Forget covid even, the most skeptical communities involving science are often those who don't know how to think about evidence properly. It ranges from those who say vaccines cause autism to those who think the earth is flat. It's not that the question itself is bad, but that when there is sufficient evidence for certain conclusions, they will still be skeptical. And when they do reach conclusions, it's more about how scientific thinking doesn't work very well, and we should remain absolutely skeptical as long as we aren't absolutely and unerringly certain. 

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

It's also a mistake to say that people either agree with Q (and those invalid epistemological methods) or they don't.

It should be clear that the context was agreeing with Q's alleged theory.  

36 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Thanks for making yourself the perfect example of inability to interpret research properly. That is not to say even voluntary lockdowns are good, it's fine enough to ask questions about it, but that the short article goes from 0 to 60 almost instantly. Collusion? It's one thing to suggest a positive feedback loop between the the social media market in the pharmaceutical market. That's a fine research question and evidence we can talk about. But the collusion part! I can't argue against it, "they" must be hiding the evidence you are right is how the discussion will always go. 

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

There is a very big difference between a vaccine that has a 20-year (or longer) track record of safety

"The vaccines are new, we have to be extra careful, because for all we know [X] will happen, so we are going to need many more years of testing!" is pretty much the refrain you will hear when anything is new. People know enough about immunology that there is a good idea of what will happen, good standards of safety, and an understanding that safety isn't an on and off thing. You present your thoughts here like a careful evaluation of facts, but it reveals an unfamiliarity thinking about relevant scientific questions. But that's something you can fix. It's different when you start swallowing the nonsense of Q even in the tiniest of doses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seldom seen someone get so feverish and exercised as you do about nothing.

(I mean,) shouldn't you be more interested in elsewhere discussing something?

(I mean,) you've said like seventeen times that it's palm-reading and have nothing else to contribute.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 4:41 PM, William Scott Scherk said:

 

Last-Nov27-2022-Q-post-memed-4966.png

Um...

 

So yes, knowledge is power, and if you're interested in DNA I would recommend reading this Wikipedia article about what's in human DNA.  No, most people do not currently have anything artificial encoded into their DNA yet (I believe because it's illegal everywhere except Singapore), nor is there any war for what could not be legally owned anyway.

 

Have you ever read Next by Michael Crichton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The U.S. Virgin Islands filed a suit this week against JPMorgan Chase, accusing the financial institution of turning a "blind eye" and aiding in the "concealment" of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking crimes."

Virgin Islands suit accuses JPMorgan of turning 'blind eye' to Epstein trafficking | Washington Examiner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

"The U.S. Virgin Islands filed a suit this week against JPMorgan Chase, accusing the financial institution of turning a "blind eye" and aiding in the "concealment" of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking crimes."

You are going to find these kinds of actors everywhere. Including the Vatican, the North Korean Government and there will be more. I have no crystal ball telling me that. For centuries the holy books were used the way Q drops are. In those cases the book is written and the writer is claimed to be supernatural. In this case, him, they, it (whatever Q is), can be very clear and spell things out like saying Epstein is doing this or that. But these generalities keep you fascinated. Why don't you read your horoscope, that might alleviate your needs a little.

Next thing you know Q will say "Some men who wear jeans are criminals in the government".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Some would say we're in the early stages of The Storm right now.

Well if we're going to say anything meaningful about anything then we have to know what we're talking about.

 

What is The Storm?  Please explain and/or define what you mean by it in your own words.

 

On 12/11/2022 at 7:28 PM, tadmjones said:

Is the sourcing of energy for Europe going to be a short term situation , are calls for de-industrialization just political rhetoric or is it an example of systemic failure / collapse?

The global pandemic response ? 

Both of those are very serious, AS-types of events.  Absolutely.

 

On 12/11/2022 at 8:33 PM, Eiuol said:

What Musk did hasn't shown much, just that Twitter had some politically minded intentions (what company doesn't?) But it was explicitly stated that there is no known direct involvement with the government.

I'm not sure if that was still true when you wrote this, but it's certainly not true any longer.

 

According to the Twitter Files the FBI was directly involved in preemptively censoring the Hunter Biden Laptop (which, as a government agency, constitutes actual and proper censorship) several months before the story for it even broke.  They were in contact with Twitter; they told them exactly what to watch for and when the Hunter Biden story was finally released as an October Surprise, the Twitter moderators acted on all the FBI training they'd received (at the FBI's own suggestion) and censored the story which would've changed 17% of Biden voters' minds.

Remember when Nixon was caught spying on the opposing campaign team?  Because if there is any truth to the Twitter Files then this was the FBI actively censoring a legitimate news story which reflected badly on the candidate who was not even in power at the time.

 

That is not nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 12:22 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Are you seriously not able to get the gist after reading the small handful of Epstein-related Q posts below? It's all too vague and unclear? Seriously?

Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on July 6th of 2019, according to Wikipedia.  The site you linked to does mention Epstein a few earlier times in 2019, but I ignored all the later posts as his crimes were all public knowledge after his arrest.

 

One of those earlier posts was a picture of Bill Clinton allegedly visiting Epstein Island (although there's no way to tell precisely where the picture was actually taken).  I honestly believe that to be the gospel truth because we all know that Bill Clinton is a hypersexual deviant fucker; if you said that he had helped Epstein in the actual commission of his sex crimes then I would believe that, too.   And for the very same reason (that everybody knows exactly what Bill Clinton is) that's hardly compelling evidence of anything.

The very next one was about the occult nature of these sex crimes and that's where you lost me.

There is no such thing as magic.  Trust me - in my teenage years I was a Satanist and I tried my damnedest to do any kind of magic, but it simply does not exist.  IF these sex crimes were in any way related to the occult then the sex crimes should still be what matters.

 

Anyway.  Is there any specific post you think is more compelling for something?  If you name one I promise I will read it.

 

On 12/12/2022 at 1:39 PM, dream_weaver said:

Considering that reasoning by analogy is invalid, drawing a sharper distinction of comparison is a step toward an objective identification. 

So ... Analogous reasoning is invalid?  That would be a shame (since it really is my forte) if true - only I don't think that is true.

C'mon, man.  If analogous reasoning is what Q uses then let's consider it by its own standards.

 

On 12/12/2022 at 8:44 PM, Jon Letendre said:

In 1964 Ayn Rand wrote in ""Extremism," or The Art of Smearing," "The basic and crucial political issue of our age is capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, [...]"

Do you suppose that she used the term suppressed to claim that the capitalism vs socialism issue was, for many previous decades, nowhere discussed, was literally wiped away, nowhere to be found?

“Extremism,” or The Art of Smearing (aynrand.org)

Yes.  And if you can provide me with compelling evidence for whatever it is you're trying to claim (which I'm still not clear on) then I will at the very least consider it

On 12/12/2022 at 9:46 PM, Jon Letendre said:

You looked at the small handful of Q posts below that return from the search term "epstein" and you can't figure the meaning of any of them?

Q (qanon.pub)

I'm sorry.  I took several minutes to figure out which posts predated Epstein's arrest and then to read those.  I got into the one about the occult, lost most of my interest, continued onto the one about the media's collusion with the DNC and then lost the rest of it (not because the media doesn't collude with the DNC but because everybody already knows it).

 

Could you please point me towards some specific post that you believe proves something?

 

On 12/12/2022 at 10:23 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Easy Truth believes Q claims that President Kennedy's son is still alive.

Here is post 2611 dated Dec 12 2018.

Any trouble deciphering it?

image.thumb.png.9692a7b91523abf5456a5acb5f9886d9.png

So @Easy Truthbelieves that!  What does THAT prove?!

 

Look, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.  I'm trying to do that because the mainstream media keeps telling me that QAnon is a bunch of crazy losers, and at this point I automatically assume that the opposite of whatever they're saying is probably the truth.

 

If you have something useful to show then please show it to me.

 

On 12/20/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eiuol said:

The headline is more like "government worked to persuade Twitter to assist in a criminal investigation".

Yes.  The government asked Twitter for help in removing disinformation.  And just like you thought you would, the Twitter moderators were eager to help the government in stopping the bad guys.

It's just that it wasn't disinformation; it was the truth and the FBI full-well fucking knew it.  The Twitter files (surprisingly enough) exonerate the Twitter employees who were involved and doubly or triply damn the FBI.

 

On 12/20/2022 at 8:19 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Wasn't that Hunter Biden Laptop thing ALL a Russian Hoax, probably linked to that Trump - Russian collusion thing (remember something about a dossier)?

I coulda sworn I heard, from cross-your heart-its-true Government Officials and Media Outlets... whom I believe unerringly, who said at the time that it was Runnian dis... mis.. cis information or something.

Yeah and don't we have a new Ministry of Truth now, can't they clear it up for us?

 

- Eager to be told what to believe and to accept it as truth -

SL

 

Yes, you certainly did hear about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  That would be the Mueller Report (the most expensive investigation of anything in American history) which failed to prove that there was any connection, whatsoever, between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

Now, although I don't hate Donald Trump, I'm not one of his fanboys.  And a failure to prove something doesn't necessarily disprove it either.  However, when the most expensive investigation of all time (which was originally alleged by a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign, I might add) fails to prove absolutely anything, I am inclined to see it as proof of innocence on at least that one count.

This is part of why I automatically assume that the media is lying to me, at all times.  You can still hear CNN anchors talking about Trump being a well-known Russian puppet despite the actual findings of the investigation which lasted through most of his presidency.

 

Granted, I still have yet to be impressed by anything I've seen from Q thus far, but it is easily provable that the mainstream media is lying to you right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eiuol said:

Questionable activities indeed. And unlike Q drops, these posts communicate something. 

Anyway: unless I'm blind, I don't see in the entire tweet thread where it says that the government paid Twitter to hide or remove information. The headline is more like "government worked to persuade Twitter to assist in a criminal investigation". I don't know about you, but if I ran Twitter, I would try to ban any and all accounts related to any kind of Russian hacking, and if the FBI asked me for information to further their investigations, I would tell them I did this. Even if I'm wrong about the gravity of what happened, we can at least evaluate specific claims. 

Talking about Q drops goes absolutely nowhere, and involves nonobjective communication.

On 12/20/2022 at 8:19 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Wasn't that Hunter Biden Laptop thing ALL a Russian Hoax, probably linked to that Trump - Russian collusion thing (remember something about a dossier)?

I coulda sworn I heard, from cross-your heart-its-true Government Officials and Media Outlets... whom I believe unerringly, who said at the time that it was Runnian dis... mis.. cis information or something.

Yeah and don't we have a new Ministry of Truth now, can't they clear it up for us?

 

- Eager to be told what to believe and to accept it as truth -

SL

 

Oh, and the Hunter Biden laptop is definitely real; it's been verified by multiple people who received the emails which the laptop seems to have sent.  At this point it is conclusive.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Biden is guilty of any impeachable offenses.  Some of its business-related emails do mention "10% for the big guy" (which most right-wingers, including myself, do believe refers to Joe Biden) but that's far from a bulletproof case for anything.  The laptop does prove that Hunter Biden, himself, certainly has committed felonies (such as taking pictures of himself snorting coke off of hookers' asses) but not Joe Biden.

 

Which - honestly, if this was just about snorting Coke off of hookers, I'd probably still be saying (as I did in the beginning) that this just makes Hunter Biden the coolest Democrat I've seen yet.

 

That's not the point, though.  The point isn't even that 17% of Biden voters wouldn't have voted for him if they'd known about the Hunter laptop.  The point is that our government is officially involved in active violations of our free speech.

That's the line that Rand said should differentiate a justified rebellion from an unjustified one.  So long as we're still free to speak about our grievances, it still isn't right to pick up guns and attempt to overthrow our own government.  What the Twitter Files show is the FBI knowingly and deliberately crossing that line.

 

Just a few months ago I would've mentioned that line, again, to anyone who thought revolution was a good idea.  Having seen the Twitter Files I now feel differently.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...