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

[Easy Truth]

No, being asked to watch a video by known admirers or Ayn Rand is one way to go. This was recommended to me by some QAnon people. I watched it. It was ridiculous.

 

[dream_weaver]

9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

You watched an HBO series hit job.

What would your impression of Ayn Rand be if you got all your information about her from television?

 

8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

OK, then going online and finding some videos claiming to be about Ayn Rand is a proper way to inform oneself about the content of her ideas?

You consider the above approach cited to be a sound analogy?

How about the converse?

The solution is to read Rand directly to grasp her clear and concise writing for one's self, is analogous to reading what appears on the qanon.pub for a similar grasp of how clear and concise the writing is there?

Edited December 12, 2022 by dream_weaver

[Jon Letendre]

Correct, you read the original source material directly. Thank you.

I never claimed comparable writing styles.

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?

Q (qanon.pub)

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Jon Letendre

[dream_weaver]

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

[Jon Letendre]

Here Musk Tweets with replies by Elon Musk (@elonmusk) / Twitter affirms that Twitter executives refused to address child exploitation occurring on the Twitter platform:

 

Here Musk affirms that Twitter executives knew that children were being trafficked utilizing the Twitter platform:

Elon Musk on Twitter: "@laralogan Indeed. Shame on them!" / Twitter

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Jon Letendre

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, 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?

It's like trying to explain why reading palm lines and using astrology is not a valid form of evidence. Yeah, I get the gist of what astrology readings mean, or what a paranoid schizophrenic means when they write a poem about the NSA spying on them from the basement surrounded by pentagrams. They aren't wrong that the NSA is spying on them, but the nature of that spying is delusional. What you say is like the paranoid schizophrenic saying that Edward Snowden revealing the spying of NSA confirms or adds weight to the claim that there is a global cabal or grand national conspiracy with a concerted effort involving satanic symbology. 

Musk didn't confirm anything, all he did is agree with the conclusion. Plus the conclusion is only really talking about content moderation and probably failures of dealing with content moderation. But hey, if Q counts as a credible source to you with pretty good evidence, I'm not surprised that you take something Musk said about content moderation (and I probably agree with him but I haven't delved into it deeply) as a wink wink. 

[Jon Letendre]

Most Q posts are simple pointers to factual but suppressed information that the reader can independently research and confirm.

[Eiuol]

What is a pointer? Postmodern poetry isn't much of anything besides word salad of word association.

[Craig24]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Most Q posts are simple pointers to factual but suppressed information that the reader can independently research and confirm.

Ok, is the info suppressed.. or can it be independently researched and confirmed?

[dream_weaver]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:43 PM, Jon Letendre said:

In all the mentions of Q at this site have any of the haters ...

As this split thread stretches into page two, and given the form of your phraseology cited above, which of the mentions were made by Q-haters on this site, and if you want to delve deeper, have there been posts made by Ayn Rand haters here as well? 

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Ok, is the info suppressed.. or can it be independently researched and confirmed?

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)

Edited December 13, 2022 by Jon Letendre

[Eiuol]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Most Q posts are simple pointers to factual but suppressed information that the reader can independently research and confirm.

Just review with us the process of interpreting Q posts. That would be easier than answering what it points to. Explain how it's different from interpreting poetry written by a paranoid schizophrenic having an episode. That's not an ad hominem attack - I literally don't know how to decipher the meaning.

[Jon Letendre]

10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Just review with us the process of interpreting Q posts. That would be easier than answering what it points to. Explain how it's different from interpreting poetry written by a paranoid schizophrenic having an episode. That's not an ad hominem attack - I literally don't know how to decipher the meaning.

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)

[Jon Letendre]

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?

[Eiuol]

51 minutes ago, 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?

No, I don't have any objective answer. Like I said, I can find meaning in a tarot card reading, but it isn't anything objective. Start with the first post about Epstein in 2017. Explain it to us.

[Jon Letendre]

Maybe later. Greg has taken down some of my posts. Maybe after that's resolved.

[dream_weaver]

9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Maybe later. Greg has taken down some of my posts. Maybe after that's resolved.

...one of your posts. You may resume what appears to be an attempt to cherry pick from your QAnon multi platform RPG.

[Easy Truth]

13 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

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

Easy Truth also claims that many QAnon people believe that. Turns out that Easy Truth is speaking the truth.

https://news.yahoo.com/qanon-supporters-gather-over-theory-210003092.html

In Rand's case, I can ascertain that A is A or existence exists or that rational egoism is not evil. I don't need to ask her to confirm it.

It goes to show you that with random statements in a body of work, like the Bible or "faith" based literature, one can interpret the information as one would with an abstract poem. Many different subjective versions emerge. Furthermore, Q said this or that can't be ascertained. Even with a cryptographic method that identifies each post as "signed" by the same person with the unique key, I can't know if there is a group that possesses that key.

The other question that comes to mind is: Let us say there is a God, or an incredibly advanced being communicating. Why not spell things out rather than drips here and there? Why does it require reading between the lines?

There are criminals at work as we speak. Can you disprove that? Does that make me one of the wisest people you can think of? One could imitate Q and once the posts get a following, it seems to have "truth" behind it. Similar to the power of  a fad and fashion.

Similar to Theranos or other fraudulent investments. They can be believable. I believed Elizabeth Holmes. I had no reason to doubt her … until I did. And this Q thing is justified like the Bible is. One verse contradicting another but used when it serves the preacher's argument.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Easy Truth
spelling

[William Scott Scherk]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:21 PM, Easy Truth said:

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

This query format can beguile with false (undocumented) dichotomy, presented as gnomic analogy -- with the entity 'Z-hater' and 'R-hater' undetermined.

That format is about as far from Objectivist inqury as it gets. The equivalent of a fortune cookie.

If a 'hater' is the polar opposite to a 'supporter' ... if a 'hater is the polar opposite to a 'lover,' then we are dealing with only one side of an equation being reasonable. As a bifurcation of possible human reactions to Z or R, it's logically insufficient. It satisfies zero criteria for an entity per ITOE chapters one and two.

If 'Z-hater' is to be a useful entity it can only designate unreason. 

What is unexamined? Rational critique. Rational critique of Rand can take many forms, and most of them can be disposed of as naive or in error. Propaganda against Rand's philosopy is almost always characterized by the criteria under ignorance, malicious distortion and ends-justify-means.

Is there a body of 'rational critique' of Z (and the culture and ramifications of Z)?  

If so, what does 'hater' have to do with it? 

This kind of query is fatally flawed, I submit. It bifurcates where bifurcation is not appropriate. It offers moralism and loaded language in its buried assumptions. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by William Scott Scherk
Copied to my "Oh well" file in case it gets yanked, as happened last time I commented in this thread

[dream_weaver]

3 hours ago, William Scott Scherk said:

Copied to my "Oh well" file in case it gets yanked, as happened last time I commented in this thread

Could you potentially address a lingering question thus far unanswered?

...which of the Q mentions were made by Q-haters on this site, and if you want to delve deeper, have there been posts made by Ayn Rand haters here as well?

[dream_weaver]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:41 PM, William Scott Scherk said:

Added link.

...

• https://8kun.top/qresearch/qposts.html
• https://qalerts.app/?n=1
• https://qalerts.app/?n=4966

 

I've reconsidered this post. It demonstrates the mysterian character using the first and last posts of the time of creation.

I do this with some hesitation. I think there is merit in the rigor of using the process of objectivity in assessing information. I've introduced several articles that have provided analysis of the QAnon rise on a different thread, which was also needed to be split off of an ongoing conversation.

Use this as a means of perhaps exploring and coming to understand the rules of evidence (key word search) and how they apply to demonstrating and establishing a claim to guilt or innocence, and explore how Rand's contributions to objectivity can be used to shed light on both what is, and what is not objective.

The courts are generally interested in if a crime has been committed.

Objectivity is interested in in evidence as well, but not delimited to criminal activity.

[Jon Letendre]

On 12/11/2022 at 7:33 PM, Eiuol said:

 [...] there is no known direct involvement with the government. The mentions about the FBI didn't reveal the nature of what the FBI wanted [...]

Elon Musk confirms FBI paid Twitter to suppress facts about Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and more:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1605219914813673473?cxt=HHwWgsDQjb_A8cYsAAAA

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Jon Letendre

[Eiuol]

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.

[StrictlyLogical]

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

 

[tadmjones]

But if you were the head of Twitter and you read Miranda Devine’s reporting , you would have seen that the laptop was real and proved Biden is corrupt and that the FBI lied to you , so what would you have done the day after ?