5 ms·

> For example, numerous people asserting that QAnon, and conspiracy theories (conspiracy theorists) in general, "are" or "believe" certain things. If one pays c

> For example, numerous people asserting that QAnon, and conspiracy theories (conspiracy theorists) in general, "are" or "believe" certain things. If one pays close attention to these threads every time they appear on HN (or elsewhere, be it social media or formal media), one may notice that the asserted descriptions are always very vague, and always only include the very worst/silliest of ideas that exist within the communities - very often, ideas that really don't have high consensus agreement in the actual communities themselves. And again, with no with no concern whatsoever for whether the assertions are actually true. Wikipedia defines Qanon as "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory.[b] It alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is battling against the cabal" The ACTUAL TRUTH is that... there is not a cabal of Satanic pedophiles plotting against Donald Trump. If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate. I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect. This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism. If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand. You need to state specific issues with their own identity. All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.

will4274 6y ago
I actually thought the comment you replied to made a good point, but I think I can explain it differently (with examples), which might make it easier to understand. I browsed some conspiracy sites back in the day, including 4chan and /r/conspiracy. There seemed to be three levels of thought about Jews. A small number of people thought that Jews had a conspiracy whereby they coordinated with each other to run the world (active collusion). A larger number of people thought that powerful people generally ran the world in a way that actively benefited the powerful and hurt the poor (without active collusion) and that a disproportionate portion of those powerful people were Jewish. A third, even larger group, didn't really think it was about Jews - like the second group, they thought powerful people subtly colluded to benefit themselves, but they weren't really interested in the religious background of those people, or recognized that the disproportionate representation of Jews among the powerful is more likely a result of a higher than average interest in education and a lower rate of divorce among Jews - just normal population demographics playing out. One of the things that was interesting is that all three groups (even those that disavowrd anti-Semitism) used "anti-Semitic" memes like (((globalists))) and that the vast majority of contributors (from the second and third group) looked down on the first group. Thinking that Jews actually got into a secret room and actively conspired - this was low-brow - and you'd see comments mocking such views - the village idiots of conspiracy village. It's my observation that the media often describes conspiracy groups as the first group only. E.g. with Pepe in 2016, the media described a green frog as an anti-Semitic symbol. But on conspiracy forums, commenters were saying "no, Pepe doesn't refer to Jews, it refers to globalists / illuminati." I think a similar thing is going on the Q. I have one friend who has been watching and describes himself as a fan - he doesn't believe it all, or even most of it - but he does believe that powerful people conspire to evade laws that is common people follow and that powerful people in particular often engage in illegal sexual liasions, including prostitution and in some cases, prostitution involving minors. The larger point is - there's a spectrum here that ranges from literally believing Clinton and Trump hang out in the same pizza parlor raping children, to believing that powerful people are generally aware of the availability of prostitution and the prostitution of minors at expensive hotels (hello, Russia Ritz Carlton, can I get a room in the presidential suite). Many of the softer versions of these "conspiracies" don't seem too far fetched to me - after all, we know that powerful people were aware of Epstein and purchased services from Epstein well before the rest of us knew. On sites like 8chan, you see the whole range - with, frankly, the majority of the commenters on the softer end - but the media represents those sites as dominated or exclusively the harder versions. And it's misleading. Such misleading descriptions attached to an attempt to restrict free speech are very dangerous IMHO, as they can be used to restrict legitimate speech e.g. about the extent of complicity of major hotel chains and just general awareness of rich people and illegal sexual transactions.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I don't disagree, but it's more or less what I meant by this line > All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate. If you think there may be some rich people who engage in with underage prostitutes, you are almost certainly correct. It's kind of dumb to make that a salient issue in your day to day if you don't have any specifics, but sure, it's probably still true somewhere. But let's say you, for whatever reason, still think its really important to make sure people ask the question, are there rich pedophiles. It should be patently obvious that aligning yourself at all with stupider ideas, even if they share a similar vein, is a bad idea. It harms your credibility to defend QAnon and then qualify that you only mean your portion. If you want to have a discussion, all you need to do is say "pizza parlor stuff is dumb, QAnon is dumb, but there is some merit to rich pedophiles somewhere. The weakness of conspiracy theorists is that they align themselves with other conspiracy theorists who offer some form of affirmation to their beliefs because they think a larger force is telling them lies. And maybe they are being told some lies. Because that's really all it is. You can adjust your level of craziness but the entire point of a conspiracy theory in-group is getting affirmation from others. If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. The spectrum is, at worst, dumb as rocks, and at best, unwise and lacking in self awareness.
  - will4274 6y ago
    I see two issues with what you're saying. First, it's not just that some rich people are pedophiles. It's called a conspiracy theory for a reason - there's conspiring going on. The CEO of the Ritz knows that his hotels offer underage prostitutes. The personal concierge directs the CEO to club which is known to be "good for rich people." The club owner knows that the company they outsource to for renting table dancers on the weekends also has dancers doing some prostituting on the side. The other rich attendees of the club (who are not purchasing) can see that that girl is clearly not 21. There's more than just pedophilia going on here - a system of winks and nods whereby powerful people are offered the opportunity to engage in illegal behavior and make no moves against the powerful people who facilitate these opportunities. The second thing is that you're missing the point around alignment. These people DON'T align themselves with each other. They frequent the same forums as each other (e.g. 8chan) and disagree with each other on those forums. It's only in the eyes of the media and in people influenced by the media that the various flavors of conspiracy people are actually aligned. Edit: was thinking about this line. > If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries? I saw a few news articles in the press exploring the phenomenon a few years back, but nothing changed. Am I supposed to found a non-profit? A newspaper? Do the investigation myself and publish it to LiveLeak? Write a letter to my congresswoman? I'm honestly not sure how to work that problem, other than just talking to other people about it.
mistermann 6y ago
> The ACTUAL TRUTH is that... No, the actual truth of what Qanon -is-, is what Qanon is. There is that which exists in reality, and then there is mankind's best efforts to measure and describe it (what you read in Wikipedia, history books, scientific textbooks and papers, etc). These things are related, but they are not the same thing. > If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. The difference between you and I is that I base my beliefs on what is known to be true, rather than on what others tell me is true, or on my subconscious heuristic predictions of what is true (ie: what I "want" to claim). What the "firm consensus" of what Qanon (or anything, for that matter) is may be interesting, but I am more concerned with what is actually True. If the "firm consensus" of global warming was that it's not happening, would your mind willingly accept that with no complaints? If not, why not? > Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory a) I have not denied this story. b) Is "Conspiracy Theory != False, necessarily)" logically correct, or incorrect? > and many others, are obviously false "Obvious" falseness is a heuristic prediction - it has not been objectively established what is known(!) to be False (or True, or Unknown) in many instances - rather, it has only been asserted (typically with little if any evidence) what is False. Again, apply your same logic to climate change and see if your thinking changes. > Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took this philosophy into the workplace when implementing software, or if a new hire brought it to you. > I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. You have no way of knowing what most conspiracy theorists are, or are not, or what they believe, just as a racist has no way of knowing the same about people who have a different skin color than them. This should be fairly easy to realize: ask yourself what the literal source of that knowledge is. Is it a broad, accurate survey of a large number of conspiracy theorists, or is it a subconscious heuristic operating on a dataset of some anecdotal personal experiences combined with large numbers of news articles and forum conversations that are also not based on direct evidence? > But they're still terribly incorrect. If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content. > This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism. Indeed it does, including right here on HN. > If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand. Completely agree, and I do realize this, and I am not "pushing the brand" - rather, I am discussing abstract principles like the value and importance of truthfulness, and the possible consequences of a culture that decides to turn its back on such principles. These are not exactly easy conversations to have, but that's why they are so important. > You need to state specific issues with their own identity. Actually, this is what I am requesting of others who are asserting that reality is composed of a specific state - my disagreement should not be considered an assertion of the opposite, because it isn't - that is undisciplined, non-logical thinking. In fact, I am simply following the "critical thinking" advice suggested by the media: do not accept things you read at face value - ask questions, challenge assertions (especially those that lack evidence, especially when their proponents are opposed to discussing evidence, preferring instead to use rhetoric), etc. > All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified Oh? What was it nullified by? > and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Pure rhetoric. > Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate. Implying that I have implied that is yet another example of the very thing I am protesting: a lack of concern for what is true.

will4274 6y ago

I actually thought the comment you replied to made a good point, but I think I can explain it differently (with examples), which might make it easier to understand. I browsed some conspiracy sites back in the day, including 4chan and /r/conspiracy. There seemed to be three levels of thought about Jews. A small number of people thought that Jews had a conspiracy whereby they coordinated with each other to run the world (active collusion). A larger number of people thought that powerful people generally ran the world in a way that actively benefited the powerful and hurt the poor (without active collusion) and that a disproportionate portion of those powerful people were Jewish. A third, even larger group, didn't really think it was about Jews - like the second group, they thought powerful people subtly colluded to benefit themselves, but they weren't really interested in the religious background of those people, or recognized that the disproportionate representation of Jews among the powerful is more likely a result of a higher than average interest in education and a lower rate of divorce among Jews - just normal population demographics playing out. One of the things that was interesting is that all three groups (even those that disavowrd anti-Semitism) used "anti-Semitic" memes like (((globalists))) and that the vast majority of contributors (from the second and third group) looked down on the first group. Thinking that Jews actually got into a secret room and actively conspired - this was low-brow - and you'd see comments mocking such views - the village idiots of conspiracy village. It's my observation that the media often describes conspiracy groups as the first group only. E.g. with Pepe in 2016, the media described a green frog as an anti-Semitic symbol. But on conspiracy forums, commenters were saying "no, Pepe doesn't refer to Jews, it refers to globalists / illuminati." I think a similar thing is going on the Q. I have one friend who has been watching and describes himself as a fan - he doesn't believe it all, or even most of it - but he does believe that powerful people conspire to evade laws that is common people follow and that powerful people in particular often engage in illegal sexual liasions, including prostitution and in some cases, prostitution involving minors. The larger point is - there's a spectrum here that ranges from literally believing Clinton and Trump hang out in the same pizza parlor raping children, to believing that powerful people are generally aware of the availability of prostitution and the prostitution of minors at expensive hotels (hello, Russia Ritz Carlton, can I get a room in the presidential suite). Many of the softer versions of these "conspiracies" don't seem too far fetched to me - after all, we know that powerful people were aware of Epstein and purchased services from Epstein well before the rest of us knew. On sites like 8chan, you see the whole range - with, frankly, the majority of the commenters on the softer end - but the media represents those sites as dominated or exclusively the harder versions. And it's misleading. Such misleading descriptions attached to an attempt to restrict free speech are very dangerous IMHO, as they can be used to restrict legitimate speech e.g. about the extent of complicity of major hotel chains and just general awareness of rich people and illegal sexual transactions.

klmadfejno 6y ago
I don't disagree, but it's more or less what I meant by this line > All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate. If you think there may be some rich people who engage in with underage prostitutes, you are almost certainly correct. It's kind of dumb to make that a salient issue in your day to day if you don't have any specifics, but sure, it's probably still true somewhere. But let's say you, for whatever reason, still think its really important to make sure people ask the question, are there rich pedophiles. It should be patently obvious that aligning yourself at all with stupider ideas, even if they share a similar vein, is a bad idea. It harms your credibility to defend QAnon and then qualify that you only mean your portion. If you want to have a discussion, all you need to do is say "pizza parlor stuff is dumb, QAnon is dumb, but there is some merit to rich pedophiles somewhere. The weakness of conspiracy theorists is that they align themselves with other conspiracy theorists who offer some form of affirmation to their beliefs because they think a larger force is telling them lies. And maybe they are being told some lies. Because that's really all it is. You can adjust your level of craziness but the entire point of a conspiracy theory in-group is getting affirmation from others. If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. The spectrum is, at worst, dumb as rocks, and at best, unwise and lacking in self awareness.
- will4274 6y ago
  I see two issues with what you're saying. First, it's not just that some rich people are pedophiles. It's called a conspiracy theory for a reason - there's conspiring going on. The CEO of the Ritz knows that his hotels offer underage prostitutes. The personal concierge directs the CEO to club which is known to be "good for rich people." The club owner knows that the company they outsource to for renting table dancers on the weekends also has dancers doing some prostituting on the side. The other rich attendees of the club (who are not purchasing) can see that that girl is clearly not 21. There's more than just pedophilia going on here - a system of winks and nods whereby powerful people are offered the opportunity to engage in illegal behavior and make no moves against the powerful people who facilitate these opportunities. The second thing is that you're missing the point around alignment. These people DON'T align themselves with each other. They frequent the same forums as each other (e.g. 8chan) and disagree with each other on those forums. It's only in the eyes of the media and in people influenced by the media that the various flavors of conspiracy people are actually aligned. Edit: was thinking about this line. > If you had a genuine interest in an issue that you wanted to raise in public awareness or do something to combat it, the route of the conspiracy theorist is an awfully dumb way to do it. What is the right way to address e.g. the widespread availability of illegal prostitution in hotels owned by American companies in foreign countries? I saw a few news articles in the press exploring the phenomenon a few years back, but nothing changed. Am I supposed to found a non-profit? A newspaper? Do the investigation myself and publish it to LiveLeak? Write a letter to my congresswoman? I'm honestly not sure how to work that problem, other than just talking to other people about it.

mistermann 6y ago

> The ACTUAL TRUTH is that... No, the actual truth of what Qanon -is-, is what Qanon is. There is that which exists in reality, and then there is mankind's best efforts to measure and describe it (what you read in Wikipedia, history books, scientific textbooks and papers, etc). These things are related, but they are not the same thing. > If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. The difference between you and I is that I base my beliefs on what is known to be true, rather than on what others tell me is true, or on my subconscious heuristic predictions of what is true (ie: what I "want" to claim). What the "firm consensus" of what Qanon (or anything, for that matter) is may be interesting, but I am more concerned with what is actually True. If the "firm consensus" of global warming was that it's not happening, would your mind willingly accept that with no complaints? If not, why not? > Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory a) I have not denied this story. b) Is "Conspiracy Theory != False, necessarily)" logically correct, or incorrect? > and many others, are obviously false "Obvious" falseness is a heuristic prediction - it has not been objectively established what is known(!) to be False (or True, or Unknown) in many instances - rather, it has only been asserted (typically with little if any evidence) what is False. Again, apply your same logic to climate change and see if your thinking changes. > Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took this philosophy into the workplace when implementing software, or if a new hire brought it to you. > I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. You have no way of knowing what most conspiracy theorists are, or are not, or what they believe, just as a racist has no way of knowing the same about people who have a different skin color than them. This should be fairly easy to realize: ask yourself what the literal source of that knowledge is. Is it a broad, accurate survey of a large number of conspiracy theorists, or is it a subconscious heuristic operating on a dataset of some anecdotal personal experiences combined with large numbers of news articles and forum conversations that are also not based on direct evidence? > But they're still terribly incorrect. If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content. > This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism. Indeed it does, including right here on HN. > If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand. Completely agree, and I do realize this, and I am not "pushing the brand" - rather, I am discussing abstract principles like the value and importance of truthfulness, and the possible consequences of a culture that decides to turn its back on such principles. These are not exactly easy conversations to have, but that's why they are so important. > You need to state specific issues with their own identity. Actually, this is what I am requesting of others who are asserting that reality is composed of a specific state - my disagreement should not be considered an assertion of the opposite, because it isn't - that is undisciplined, non-logical thinking. In fact, I am simply following the "critical thinking" advice suggested by the media: do not accept things you read at face value - ask questions, challenge assertions (especially those that lack evidence, especially when their proponents are opposed to discussing evidence, preferring instead to use rhetoric), etc. > All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified Oh? What was it nullified by? > and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man. Pure rhetoric. > Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate. Implying that I have implied that is yet another example of the very thing I am protesting: a lack of concern for what is true.