Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Jon Letendre
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

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.

I believe I actually made this exact argument a while back to @Devil's Advocate.  Today I would agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 12/22/2022 at 8:56 AM, Eiuol said:

To say that Q is right is to say that you are a believer, even a little bit.  

So Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong, right?  Because that's something Q mentioned and we can never agree with Q.  Did you know that Hitler enjoyed painting and breathing Oxygen?

That's exactly the sort of reasoning that makes me think I need to ask him once again for better evidence.  If that kind of reasoning is representative of why everyone is making fun of these loons then perhaps they're not that far off, at all.

Quote

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.

OH!

 

So the drug war is fine, too, right?  After all, sobriety is extremely safe.  So is having babies under modern conditions - so the repealing of Roe v. Wade is also fine!

JESUS FUCK.  Is that really who you are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ever, even once, sited a specific Q post and forthrightly engaged with its contents? Or is there always only loud and confident denunciation, belittlement and deflection?

Why might the haters of Ayn Rand and Q behave in the same ways?

https://qanon.pub

I hate Q.  Fuck Q and the boomer fantasists who want to believe that the system they have lived with their whole life will somehow correct itself as they passively watch the show.   Q is for people who have spent their entire lives sitting on their ass watching television, being mentally passive.  Q is a pacifier.  Q is a distraction.  Q is a propaganda operation by an unfriendly power, your own government (probably the FBI with possible cross training and skill sharing with the CIA and DIA).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So the drug war is fine, too, right?  After all, sobriety is extremely safe.  So is having babies under modern conditions - so the repealing of Roe v. Wade is also fine!

De facto refers to things that you pretty much have to do but are not required by law. If most people think you should get a vaccine, and by and large people don't want to do things because of that like hire you for a job, let your kids attend the school, or letting you onto property. Social rather than legal enforcement. Or it could refer to things that unavoidably end up a certain way The drug war is legally enforced, so that's completely different.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong, right?  Because that's something Q mentioned and we can never agree with Q.  Did you know that Hitler enjoyed painting and breathing Oxygen?

You dropped the context of the discussion. We were talking about Q's alleged theories being correct. It's kind of like seeing someone post a picture of a Star of David, on a stack of money, that says "follow the money". And you could say that person is kind of right or onto something, because there are a lot of ethnically Jewish people involved in higher levels of media. But if we talk about this person being right, we are talking about the obvious anti-Semitic expression. Are they right that "the Jews" are up to something? If you agree a little bit, guess what, you are a little bit anti-Semitic. 

8 hours ago, Grames said:

Q is a propaganda operation by an unfriendly power, your own government (probably the FBI with possible cross training and skill sharing with the CIA and DIA).  

Maybe, but it could just as well be a propaganda operation led by the US government to subvert domestic authoritarian terrorists. "Unfriendly" in your statement is basically what side are you on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grames said:

I hate Q.  Fuck Q and the boomer fantasists who want to believe that the system they have lived with their whole life will somehow correct itself as they passively watch the show.   Q is for people who have spent their entire lives sitting on their ass watching television, being mentally passive.  Q is a pacifier.  Q is a distraction.  Q is a propaganda operation by an unfriendly power, your own government (probably the FBI with possible cross training and skill sharing with the CIA and DIA).  

What do you think Q pacified people away from?

That is, who would have done and/or be doing what, if it weren't for their being pacified by Q's influence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

What do you think Q pacified people away from?

If you are sure that Q is real, legitimate, and correct, why aren't you doing more to fight? Whatever reason you give, that should make your answer easy to see.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2022 at 3:17 PM, Jon Letendre said:

What do you think Q pacified people away from?

That is, who would have done and/or be doing what, if it weren't for their being pacified by Q's influence?

They were dissuaded from participating in politics at the local and state level, working on election reform, electing judges, and being polling precinct workers.  Time spent watching ex-military officers predict imminent coups and mass arrests is purely wasted time.  "Follow the plan" is simply "stay home and wait".  When none of the fantasies came true people get further discouraged from ever participating in actual politics.  Actual work that gets shit done is tedious and time consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2022 at 11:14 AM, Eiuol said:

The drug war is legally enforced, so that's completely different.

Yeah, it is.  I'm sorry; I have some thoughts about the vaccine mandates that really aren't relevant to this thread, or what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2022 at 8:56 AM, Eiuol said:

To say that Q is right is to say that you are a believer, even a little bit.

Well, since Q said that Jeffrey Epstein was doing bad things to kids I guess I'm a Q believer.

 

Personally I wouldn't call myself one, and I don't agree with this notion that a single point of agreement makes me a believer.  I don't even agree with Ayn Rand about absolutely 100% of every word she ever spoke.  I would consider myself a believer in Q if I agreed with MOST of his ideas in general - although the fact that so many of his own posts can't be pinned down to any one particular meaning does not make it easy to determine that.

 

On 12/21/2022 at 3:55 PM, tadmjones said:

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.

Is that one of his concrete statements?  This whole conversation would be much easier if we could concretize exactly what we're talking about.  Everybody seems to have an opinion on whether they agree or disagree with Q but I personally only know of a couple of things he's said.

 

I know he talked about Jeffrey Epstein being involved in a child sex trafficking ring which also involved many other powerful people.  That's demonstrably true; we all know that it's true.  I've also been told by his detractors that this same child sex trafficking ring is supposed to be sacrificing children to the devil, in Satanic rituals, which grants them additional power and long life.  If that's actually something he's said (although, again, I've never heard it explained that way by any of his sympathizers) then it's some grade-A Looney Tunes shit.

 

On 12/22/2022 at 7:09 AM, 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.

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

I tend to agree about the yard signs.  Not because I generally agree or disagree with Q but because Q people aren't likely to spontaneously start trying to bully me into wearing a mask while I'm mowing my own lawn by myself or demanding to know what does or doesn't go into my own private bloodstream.

On 12/22/2022 at 1:21 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Yes, suicide rates went up during the lockdowns, along with many other signifiers of mental illness.  Surprisingly, hearing so many people say that there's no such thing as individual rights and no values except for safety probably doesn't make people feel very good about the world they're living in (imagine my shock).

 

But figuratively sacrificing the mental well-being of children to the goal of absolute safety is not exactly the same thing as literally sacrificing childrens' lives to the Devil, Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re Q and body doubles, I'm not that well versed  but it seems the more 'outlandish' claims are generated by the qanon community or a segment there of, I know people who are convinced about the body double phenomenon. And have seen on the interwebs postings picking apart photos that the posters claim to show proof these doubles use make-up and prosthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2022 at 8:56 AM, Eiuol said:

"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.

One would certainly hope so.

 

I used to regularly listen to a variety of science communication channels on YouTube (like SciShow and Kyle Hill).  I like science, and taking a few minutes each day to stay up-to-date with its developments was something I got a lot of value out of.  Over the last few years I've unsubscribed to every single one which tried to tell me there is no such thing as biological sex, which was most of them.

It was always the same argument, virtually word for word, every single time.  "Not everyone is born with XX or XY chromosomes.  Some people are born XXY or something else; some people are born with both a penis and a vagina.  Therefore biological sex is not a binary but a spectrum and it's important for us to be inclusive and understanding of everybody on this spectrum!"  Now, aside from all the over-the-top bromides about kindness and tolerance which had nothing to do with science, it'd be interesting to apply that same argument to the question of how many fingers and toes a human being has.  Since not everyone is born with five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, is there any factual statement we can ever make about how many fingers and toes a person has?  How many legs are on a chair or a table?  What can we ever know about such existents if they even do exist?

It's a rejection of the very act of conceptualization (and consequently of science itself, to boot) and over the last few years it's taken over the entire science communication industry.

 

One certainly does hope it hasn't infected the actual scientists whose findings are being communicated.

 

On 12/22/2022 at 9:59 AM, tadmjones said:

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

Well, what do you mean by "untested"?

If you mean that it's just something Johnny Crackhead down the street threw together one night then no, that skepticism certainly is not arbitrary.  If it's something scientists have good reasons to believe will work, but have yet to apply to any living organism then a bit of skepticism probably is still warranted.  If it's gone through animal trials and human trials and we know it won't harm most people (at least in less than two years) then it probably isn't harmful.  This doesn't mean it should be forced on an entire population against their will, just because it's safe - but it probably is safe.

Besides which, is safety the only value which matters in this context?  I know that's usually the way these things are discussed (the ONLY aspect of COVID we're allowed to talk about is what is or isn't safe) and it's wrong.  If someone wanted to inject themselves with an untested medical intervention which genuinely wasn't safe then wouldn't it be their right to make that decision for themselves?

Quote

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?

No.

On 12/22/2022 at 11:23 AM, necrovore said:

There's also a package-deal obscuring the notion that one can support vaccines but oppose mandates. Vaccines are science, but mandates are politics.

Yes, thank you.  100%.

 

On 12/22/2022 at 2:37 PM, Eiuol said:

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. 

Yes.  Also including conclusions about how many biological sexes there are, how much of a risk the COVID virus itself poses (and to whom) and whether we are currently capable of eradicating it.

 

Quote

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. 

Well, if there were any such collusion then I'm sure it'll come out in the Twitter Files.  :thumbsup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, since Q said that Jeffrey Epstein was doing bad things to kids I guess I'm a Q believer.

Depends on why. If you say something like "Q is onto something" that's what I'm talking about. 

2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, if there were any such collusion then I'm sure it'll come out in the Twitter Files.  

Whatever the Twitter files could have been, the whole thing was botched up, especially since for the sake of transparency, all the relevant details can be dropped right now

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

re Q and body doubles, I'm not that well versed  but it seems the more 'outlandish' claims are generated by the qanon community or a segment there of, I know people who are convinced about the body double phenomenon. And have seen on the interwebs postings picking apart photos that the posters claim to show proof these doubles use make-up and prosthetics.

Earlobes connected to cheek:

image.thumb.png.c296178845cd94377f9351f275ad9a6c.png

image.thumb.png.28e772f877f4de5c6cf3b07ef0422a22.png

Hanging earlobes not connected to cheek:

image.thumb.png.21c141a858be92eff560c3b87cc0672d.png

image.png.930e7dc77057e9288ea8b0f969af7061.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Yes , that is the kind of thing I was/am "hearing" about. And what is ridiculous is that some conclude that there are at least two Joe Bidens running around skipping right over "wait, why the fuck would there be two Joes ?!"

 

I consider video/photographic evidence for a phenomenon as having primacy over whether or not I can figure out precise motivations for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Russian, Iranian, and North Korean intelligence agencies love you. Happy New Year.

That's fascinating. I think Q comes from good guys inside American military intelligence circles, Grames thinks it comes from bad guys inside American government circles and you seem to be suggesting it comes from conspiring Russian, Iranian and North Korean intelligence agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think Q comes from good guys inside American military intelligence circles

I am suggesting that your standards of validating makes you their type of prospect. Good guys in the military can speak in clearer terms, not in horoscope language which you seem to glamorize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the proper method of validating the actuality of body doubles is to ignore direct physical evidence of it until I understand who is doing it and why?

Good guys in US intelligence cannot directly communicate information implicating bad actors if said bad actors have seen to the classification of the evidence of their wrongdoings.

Show me where I glamorized horoscope language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Show me where I glamorized horoscope language.

Show me where he, it, they, mention Jeffrey Epstein. If not you interpreted it from horoscope type generalities.

29 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Good guys in US intelligence cannot directly communicate information implicating bad actors if said bad actors have seen to the classification of the evidence of their wrongdoings.

Elaborate, I have no idea what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

So, the proper method of validating the actuality of body doubles is to ignore direct physical evidence of it until I understand who is doing it and why?

The proper method of validating means (among other things) ignoring arbitrary statements from an unknown source. You validate based on a source that talks like a horoscope writer. Or someone who has the skills of a magician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Show me where he, it, they, mention Jeffrey Epstein. If not you interpreted it from horoscope type generalities.

Q was posting about Jeffrey Epstein, by name, and his systematic blackmailing of elites from around the world for two years prior to Epstein's arrest. That was covered on page one of this thread.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...