Message added by william.scherk

For a ground-floor view of the phenomena of QAnon ... including the gestation of 'Watkins-Q-kun':


william.scherk

8,385 views

Credence and interest in the QAnon phenomena  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Which choice best represents your interest in the QAnon phenomenon

    • Uninterested
      2
    • Interested, but skeptical
      1
    • I already know what I know
      0
    • None of your business. I don't declare my interests
      0
    • "Don't bother to examine a folly ... "
      0
    • I'd be interested in an objective analysis of the phenomena
      0
    • I will explain everything in a guest post here, if given the opportunity
      0

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/02/2018 at 02:32 AM

I'd like to open a field of discussion for the QAnon phenomena.  Here is where I will post in already existing material presented at OL by members.  I'll take direction from comments and from poll answers. 

  • What is Q / QAnon?
  • Why should anyone on OL pay attention?
  • Is skepticism justified?
  • What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion?

No special rules or guidelines for this thread; the OL guidelines are good enough and will apply here. .  Please keep personal abuse to a minimum. Creative insults are kosher, but if they aren't on topic, why post them?

hr

Our forum leader opened discussion on the phenomena back in January of this year.  My key-word search-term was "QAnon,"  not "Q," so the search results will not necessarily return all incidence of discussion touching on the phenomena.

On 1/3/2018 at 4:10 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...] If you really want to go down a Rabbit Hole where anti-deep state magic happens for real, look into "QAnon."

I will post a thing about him later, probably in a new thread or on the Conspiracy Theory thread. He's been spot on accurate predicting a lot of recent happenings right before they happen. More recently he's been doing some twittering and he seems to like hamming it up a bit, so here are a few teasers:

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

:)

 

More coming...

 

469 Comments


Recommended Comments



This lady most likely will take a seat in the House come January.

Great, a QAnon DF and a 9/11 Truther.  She's the total package.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Great, a QAnon DF and a 9/11 Truther.  She's the total package.

William,

I mentioned that in another thread and added the icing to the cake.

It looks like you missed it, so I'm happy to add the same icing to your cake.

Helpfully...

🙂

Michael

Link to comment

  

On 11/30/2018 at 4:05 AM, Jonathan said:
On 11/29/2018 at 4:52 PM, william.scherk said:

What is QAnon?

No. I didn't ask that.

On 11/29/2018 at 4:52 PM, william.scherk said:

Jon Letendre touts QAnon here on OL as a true believer.

Ah. So, you're interested in discussing Jon, not Q. Why not do so? That might be interesting.

On 11/29/2018 at 4:52 PM, william.scherk said:

Jon Letendre touts QAnon here on OL as a true believer.  In terms of "passion for Q,"  I can't beat that devotion. If somebody says that they do not understand why I find the gap between Objectivist epistemology and QAnon whoopee interesting or notable, that's not a problem for me.

Blank-out, as they say.

Hahaha. Wow, that was so smooth, Billy! Seamless! I didn't even see what happened. No one did.

Believing in bullshit (or not applying a coherent realist/small-O epistemology) is not an Objectivist virtue. In my opinion, Q is a fraud and a distraction with all the trappings of a cult movement. It boggles my mind that Objectivish people accept either the soft or hard version of the Q lore, or find the foundational premises of Q captivating in themselves.

On 11/30/2018 at 4:10 AM, Jonathan said:

Billy, one more suggestion. Aim higher. Go bigger. You're very bright, and can bite off and chew much more.

Yeah, about that. Since my first posting of this topic, rational takes on the phenomena have skidded off the runway, and the rotten epistemology has proliferated. Yesterday, a most cynical day, the President put his finger on the problem, the skid of reason. Since the tut-tut pat on the head above, realism and objective epistemology is on its way to the ditch.

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Believing in bullshit (or not applying a coherent realist/small-O epistemology) is not an Objectivist virtue. In my opinion, Q is a fraud and a distraction with all the trappings of a cult movement. It boggles my mind that Objectivish people accept either the soft or hard version of the Q lore, or find the foundational premises of Q captivating in themselves.

This slide away from Objectivist epistemological norms is really testing your nerves, Billy! I feel for you. Hang in there! Keep praying for a universe that will one day make sense again!

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Since the tut-tut pat on the head above, realism and objective epistemology is on its way to the ditch.

William,

That's not true.

You refuse to accept what QAnon actually is.

It is a form of spreading the freedom message that no censor on earth can throttle.

Call it a cult if you wish and clutch your pearls about the destruction of rational epistemology (as if that were even possible), but that will not stop the message of freedom from spreading via Q. And it will misdirect the attention of people engaged at fighting the current attempt at tyranny by an elitist class.

QAnon is one of the strong drivers of this freedom and resistance to tyranny message.

The more you dismiss it, call it lack of reason, cult, and so on, the stronger it gets.

There is a reason for that--a perfectly rational, understandable and even measurable reason--but I doubt you will ever want to look. You have a story in your mind and you keep trying to fit reality to that story when reality is not so accommodating.

If you want to destroy Q, you first have to identify it correctly.

So far, all you've done in all your posts is talk about a cartoon that you want Q to be.

Michael

Link to comment

Vice President Pence is dismissive of Q ... After Trump praise, Pence decries QAnon 'conspiracy theory'

"I don’t know anything about QAnon, and I dismiss it out of hand."

Quote

 Vice President Mike Pence is dismissing QAnon as a “conspiracy theory,” drawing a line of distinction between himself and President Donald Trump, who earlier this week suggested he appreciated supporters of the theory backing his candidacy.

“We dismiss conspiracy theories around here out of hand,” Pence said Friday on CNN's “New Day," saying he had heard Trump's comments and subsequently decrying the media that “chases after shiny objects.”

Asked on CBS' “CBS This Morning” if he was inflaming attention on the group by not going on the record to oppose it, Pence decried “spending time on a major network to talk about some conspiracy online theory,” later adding, "I don’t know anything about QAnon, and I dismiss it out of hand." [...]

What does the current actor performing Q have to say?  Not much.

q4626.png

 

Link to comment

Some Q-Watchers have well-developed senses of humour.  Martin Geddes is one of the most entertaining of front-bench Q-whisperers.

 

Link to comment

And dontcha know Tony B has a Q clearance , and for some reason he told Tucker that his sister-in-law, who unfortunately passed away after a battle with cancer died at 6:38 . So that's weird.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, tmj said:

And dontcha know Tony B has a Q clearance , and for some reason he told Tucker that his sister-in-law, who unfortunately passed away after a battle with cancer died at 6:38 . So that's weird.

Just for the reader: Q clearance.

This is a super-high-level government security clearance, not QAnon.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment

and to further elucidate Q refers to an entity that posts messages , Qanon are loosely the 'followers'

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, tmj said:

and to further elucidate Q refers to an entity that posts messages , Qanon are loosely the 'followers'

T,

Yup.

Here's how I said it on another thread a day or so ago:

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just so people understand a legal point, here is an explanation about QAnon.

This word is actually an agglomeration of two parts representing two different things.

Q is a person or group of people who communicate through "Drops." This started on 4Chan, but now there are a few sites where the drops can be found (for example, QAlerts), but as far as I know, there is no way to know if this is official since nobody knows who Q is.

Q supplies the puzzles, so to speak. And Anon works on solving the puzzles. 

Anon is a non-organized bunch of individuals who take the Drops and talk about them in public, mostly on the Internet. Oddly enough, most of these individuals are not anonymous. Of course, there are other groups that use "Anon" as their name or part of their name. But within the context of Q, Anon means this non-organized bunch.

So QAnon is not an entity, nor even a group. It merely became fashionable to link Q and Anon together into one word as a sort of shortcut.

This is why you don't see "QAnon" listed among the plaintiffs in the Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in William's post...

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If you are up for some depressing news from Q-world:

That reddit is full of leftists. It's likely all fake posts.

 

Also, right wing people don't even use reddit.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

That reddit is full of leftists. It's likely all fake posts.

 

Also, right wing people don't even use reddit.

D,

Heh.

It's like posting quotes by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from her interview with Alex Jones and expecting people to take that seriously.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

QAnon can fuck people up.  

So can pics of my neighbor's new whip on facebook.

So does lying to 'reputable' media about the goings on of closed meetings , without anyone mentioning that lying to the media is not a crime( defamation, libel notwithstanding).

People need to not let things fuck them up. , ..or people who know better should be in charge , yeah ?

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now