4 ms·

Yeah. Copying my post from yesterday's thread -- which only looks more and more real today with increasing rationalization leading to explanations like that hed

Yeah. Copying my post from yesterday's thread -- which only looks more and more real today with increasing rationalization leading to explanations like that hedge funds are "short ladder attacking" GME. ------------------------------------------ The claims and the consequences are very different, but I definitely get the same sense I got reading Q stuff when I skim the current WSB page. - The media, government, and elites are conspiring against us. - Info that says short interest has decreased / shorts have covered is propaganda and should be ignored. - Info that says short interest is still sky-high is to be believed without question. - Parties who were on our side of the bet but are now advising caution (e.g. Burry or S3) must be malicious or compromised, can't possibly be genuine. - Mix of facts with misunderstood interpretations thereof: 140% short interest is very high (fact), 140% short interest should not be legally possible (misunderstanding). - The dark truth we are about to reveal (counterfeit stocks?) has been going on for a long time, but now the wool will be lifted from the eyes of the nonbelievers. - Your continued belief in "the plan" is important. You must keep the faith! - "The Event" will take place on X date, but when it doesn't, no problem: it was always going to be Y date that It Happens. - We all KNOW our version of the story is right. What particular pieces of evidence are so rock-solid and convincing? Oh, well, there's SO MUCH, but it's not my job to spoon feed you the facts. If you don't know, you clearly haven't been paying attention and should do your own research. - If somebody published something saying that we're wrong, it means that "They" are scared of us. We must be getting close. I don't know whether WSB's narrative is right or wrong, which is why I am on neither side of this trade and merely watching with interest from the sidelines. They could very well be correct about all of this. I also am not trying to allege that being a "GME to the moon" person makes you a "Q person". They are completely different sets of beliefs. All that I'm observing is that the marketing of the ideas is similar.

wnevets 6y ago
Thanks for laying that all out so I don't have to. Here are some other examples I noticed. "Memes" that are outright out of a WW2 propagandist playbook with phrases like "Hold the line" or the WSB kid with sunglasses seen taking out the enemy. People trying prove their devotion to the cause is so much higher than their fellow brethren. "For every upvote I'll donate to the campaign/I'll buy stock in GME"
- hef19898 6y ago
  Stuff like that usually causes to walk away immediately from things. Still the overlap of methods is interesting.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Also, the WSB kid logo superficially looks like Trump (hair color, style and tie). I know /r/wsb disavows politics, but I found it an interesting coincidence.
  - esyir 6y ago
    Or a "suit" as per the typical wall street uniform, and blonde hair? I'd say you're heavily overfitting here.
yters 6y ago
The irony is these tropes have been used by the establishment forever.
- wnevets 6y ago
  Maybe the establishment is still using them in this case.
  - yters 6y ago
    Hah! Great point. The bourgeoisie like to use us proles as a pretext for their shenanigans.
bo1024 6y ago
Thanks, this is really nicely laid out.
JamesSwift 6y ago
I never read Q stuff, but from watching how this has unfolded on WSB I thought to myself "this sounds exactly like what the Q stuff must be like". That sucks, because I would hate to lose the raw WSB energy to this.
tedunangst 6y ago
Yeah, it's pretty far gone once it gets to the literally posting "we're over the target" phase.
unethical_ban 6y ago
I'm only halfway in the conspiracy of GME moon. I have seen several articles in the past week outright rejecting the idea that anyone is in on GME for the "cause" of shitting on the funds (even if it turns out ineffective). If I see an article failing to recognize the legitimate populist (and correct) element of the moment, while hand-wringing about the fund managers, my bullshit detector goes off. Also, can you explain, or link, or anything, as to why shorting more shares than there are to trade a good thing? Why short selling is legal at all? Shorting seems like a terrible tool in society, a way for people with money to gamble, win big, but occasionally fail so hard the federal government needs to step in.
- rspeele 6y ago
  Why short selling is legal at all? Well, why not? There are two or three parties to every short, all engaging in the activity because they expect to benefit. 1. The lender of the stock, who gets interest payments like any other lender 2. The short seller, who of course expects to pocket the difference if the stock goes down 3. The person who buys the stock from the short seller, presumably expecting it to go up (this party could, knowingly or not, be the same person as #1) Sure, the short seller is taking the risk of a massive loss in a scenario like this, but that's their problem. And if they fail so hard they can't possibly return what they owe, then it becomes the lender's problem. But that's true of any loan, so it's up to the lender to set the terms in a way that limits their risk (e.g. not lending to "risky" borrowers, not lending too much of what they have in reserve). What's the difference with other forms of lending? In the movie "The Big Short", weren't the short sellers the heroes of the tale -- the ones who really looked into the underlying assets, looked past the exuberance and overconfidence, and found the system to be rotting?
  - esyir 6y ago
    I think there's two things here. One is the case of the said underpricing. That's the theoretical role that short selling. The second is that it's a fantastic weapon to use against less sophisticated, less coordinated retail investors. From what I understand here, large quantities of short selling can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Drop the price with shorts and let panic set in. Retailers sell due to panic, dropping it further. This goes into a nice little spiral, which lets the shorters cover. You could also argue that this current situation falls into a "short and distort" category as well if you take the media into consideration.
mrtksn 6y ago
When it's put that way, the mechanics looks similar. I wonder if there are people who took this psyche down to science and monetising it.
pgwhalen 6y ago
Another similarity: outsiders (and even insiders) aren't sure whether the whole thing is a joke or not.
f430 6y ago
yeah the "Deepstate" is now "Hedgefund + Mainstream Media" if you actually swap out the words, it reads almost exactly like the Q conspiracy and the other crap Trump supporters been echoing in their chambers. I wonder if there is a math formula to these conspiracy/pseudo realities. They seem to have very similar structures and literally just the variables are different each time. Coupled with attaching legitimacy to numbers (your account is too new therefore untrustworthy, you have lot of karma points so you can't be lying), it would be very easy to paint any type of narrative while signaling trustworthiness. Also, people often claim to be part of X or in position Y without any verification to win confidence. Literally the psychology of confidence man has now taken the form of some integer attached to a username in a database somewhere. We also see this blind trust in large numbers on Instagram and Youtube where the number of subscribers and likes automatically signals importance, legitimacy when all of it are easily manipulated, paid for.

wnevets 6y ago

Thanks for laying that all out so I don't have to. Here are some other examples I noticed. "Memes" that are outright out of a WW2 propagandist playbook with phrases like "Hold the line" or the WSB kid with sunglasses seen taking out the enemy. People trying prove their devotion to the cause is so much higher than their fellow brethren. "For every upvote I'll donate to the campaign/I'll buy stock in GME"

hef19898 6y ago
Stuff like that usually causes to walk away immediately from things. Still the overlap of methods is interesting.
sangnoir 6y ago
Also, the WSB kid logo superficially looks like Trump (hair color, style and tie). I know /r/wsb disavows politics, but I found it an interesting coincidence.
- esyir 6y ago
  Or a "suit" as per the typical wall street uniform, and blonde hair? I'd say you're heavily overfitting here.

yters 6y ago

The irony is these tropes have been used by the establishment forever.

wnevets 6y ago
Maybe the establishment is still using them in this case.
- yters 6y ago
  Hah! Great point. The bourgeoisie like to use us proles as a pretext for their shenanigans.

bo1024 6y ago

Thanks, this is really nicely laid out.

JamesSwift 6y ago

I never read Q stuff, but from watching how this has unfolded on WSB I thought to myself "this sounds exactly like what the Q stuff must be like". That sucks, because I would hate to lose the raw WSB energy to this.

tedunangst 6y ago

Yeah, it's pretty far gone once it gets to the literally posting "we're over the target" phase.

unethical_ban 6y ago

I'm only halfway in the conspiracy of GME moon. I have seen several articles in the past week outright rejecting the idea that anyone is in on GME for the "cause" of shitting on the funds (even if it turns out ineffective). If I see an article failing to recognize the legitimate populist (and correct) element of the moment, while hand-wringing about the fund managers, my bullshit detector goes off. Also, can you explain, or link, or anything, as to why shorting more shares than there are to trade a good thing? Why short selling is legal at all? Shorting seems like a terrible tool in society, a way for people with money to gamble, win big, but occasionally fail so hard the federal government needs to step in.

rspeele 6y ago
Why short selling is legal at all? Well, why not? There are two or three parties to every short, all engaging in the activity because they expect to benefit. 1. The lender of the stock, who gets interest payments like any other lender 2. The short seller, who of course expects to pocket the difference if the stock goes down 3. The person who buys the stock from the short seller, presumably expecting it to go up (this party could, knowingly or not, be the same person as #1) Sure, the short seller is taking the risk of a massive loss in a scenario like this, but that's their problem. And if they fail so hard they can't possibly return what they owe, then it becomes the lender's problem. But that's true of any loan, so it's up to the lender to set the terms in a way that limits their risk (e.g. not lending to "risky" borrowers, not lending too much of what they have in reserve). What's the difference with other forms of lending? In the movie "The Big Short", weren't the short sellers the heroes of the tale -- the ones who really looked into the underlying assets, looked past the exuberance and overconfidence, and found the system to be rotting?
- esyir 6y ago
  I think there's two things here. One is the case of the said underpricing. That's the theoretical role that short selling. The second is that it's a fantastic weapon to use against less sophisticated, less coordinated retail investors. From what I understand here, large quantities of short selling can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Drop the price with shorts and let panic set in. Retailers sell due to panic, dropping it further. This goes into a nice little spiral, which lets the shorters cover. You could also argue that this current situation falls into a "short and distort" category as well if you take the media into consideration.

mrtksn 6y ago

When it's put that way, the mechanics looks similar. I wonder if there are people who took this psyche down to science and monetising it.

pgwhalen 6y ago

Another similarity: outsiders (and even insiders) aren't sure whether the whole thing is a joke or not.

f430 6y ago

yeah the "Deepstate" is now "Hedgefund + Mainstream Media" if you actually swap out the words, it reads almost exactly like the Q conspiracy and the other crap Trump supporters been echoing in their chambers. I wonder if there is a math formula to these conspiracy/pseudo realities. They seem to have very similar structures and literally just the variables are different each time. Coupled with attaching legitimacy to numbers (your account is too new therefore untrustworthy, you have lot of karma points so you can't be lying), it would be very easy to paint any type of narrative while signaling trustworthiness. Also, people often claim to be part of X or in position Y without any verification to win confidence. Literally the psychology of confidence man has now taken the form of some integer attached to a username in a database somewhere. We also see this blind trust in large numbers on Instagram and Youtube where the number of subscribers and likes automatically signals importance, legitimacy when all of it are easily manipulated, paid for.