Hacker News Reader

Comment by skindoe | Hacker News Reader

Notice how only 1 post out of thousands by the so called Q we're shown in the making this article?

Notice how immediately they point to one case of violence which was denounced by Q. Seems like an attempt to emotionally connect Q with a single nutjob.

Do you think it would be fair to write articles about everyone based on the actions of a single supporter with clear mental illness? Why the double standard?

If what Q is saying is so dangerous then why not actually show that material and debunk it directly?

Just like the podesta emails the content is always completely ignored because the people writing these articles don't want you to be informed here. Ask yourself why? What is their agenda here? Is it in your best interest?

Read the drops qmap.pub and think for yourself.

If you haven't read any of the drops how can anyone take your opinion seriously on something you know nothing about?

View on HN

Are you a believer in the Q contents?

Was there a defining a moment that made you believe in it, if you do?

I'm not going read drops or maps, I'm not even sure what that means and don't plan to spend my weekend figuring that out, there's only so much time and we have to pick and choose ya know, so if you could expand, please do.

> I'm not going read drops or maps, I'm not even sure what that means and don't plan to spend my weekend figuring that out

..."drops" is literal "post was dropped", the site is just a collection of unredacted posts by Q.

Look at their comment history. I’ve asked folks this question in other forums and they never answer. But their comments always defend Q

If you announced you were QAnon, you'd probably be outed and end up fired, maybe get death threats.

Its why the silent majority exists.

QAnon is wayyyy too far out there for the silent majority...that’s just not a fair comparison.

Are we just going to pretend that Epstein never existed?

"If what Q is saying is so dangerous then why not actually show that material and debunk it directly?"

Probably because the "material" is generated faster than anyone could possibly analyze it, which is why there are so many variants of the conspiracy theory floating around and why more seem to appear with each passing day.

"think for yourself"

Sure, let's start with, "Does this seem realistic?" If not, let's try, "Is there extraordinary evidence for these extraordinary claims?" Thus far the answer is "no, not even close" and the entire thing looks like a desperate attempt on the part of Trump's supporters to deny the plainly obvious fact that the man is an inept moron with deep insecurities and no conscience.

(Edit: the first thing I saw on website you provided was an assertion that the DNC logo looks like the satanic baphomet symbol. I do not even see what can be properly debunked there -- it is an opinion and there is no actual conclusion to be drawn even if the logo looked kind of like baphomet. I could claim that Trump's left eye looks like the meta key on an old Lisp machine keyboard, and demand that you debunk my claim.)

Exactly. I'm am very sad to read the grandparent comment. It's not pleasant that anyone could be so misguided, and especially to see such lunacy on HN. It's not incumbent on anyone to continually engage with and point-by-point knock down Q: bullshit can be generated much faster than it can be fact checked (putting truth at a structural disadvantage), and engaging in this stupidity confers it legitimacy it doesn't deserve. I am despondent for humanity, that so many of us are so (1) easily confused (2) incapable of actually doing their own research (instead castigating people to "do their own research", which if they did in any reasonable way would show the absurdity of belief in Q) (3) related to 2, so commonly projecting their own flaws and insisting they are those of others. I hate being a misanthrope, but there's no way to be informed nowadays and not be deeply disappointed in our species.

We can only hope (as we always have) that our ability to evolve (our software first, hardware next) will stay just ahead of our ability and desire to destroy ourselves. I sure hope I didn’t make a huge mistake having two kids. But I hope that by raising them in a loving household they will be good people in the world to balance the bad.

I very much agree with your general hope, and I also worry about bringing children into this world, though I haven't yet.

I'm not as hopeful for technological solutions to societal ills, though -- it seems to me that most problems are matters of historic and current national/global philosophies (as instantiated by norms of personal action), ie the problem really just has to do with how we are as a species, and technology in and of itself can't breed the empathy and unity of purpose (for the progress of human knowledge and standard of life, the stewardship of our planet, the continual growth of our species' sphere of concern to hopefully come to recognize all of our universe for the real wonder and treasure that it is) as would be necessary for the real flourishing of our world. Of course, technology could be useful for this, provided it did in fact disseminate such ideas. But these ideas run counter to those most easily spread (hate, fear, etc) and so (as it stands) the infrastructure of the internet allows the latter to spread more easily than the former. I guess (after all this ramble) that I hope that technology in the future can be built with these goals of universal progress in mind, and that such ideas can spread to their users. But such a thing must be done intentionally, as otherwise technology often has the opposite effect.

> I'm am very sad to read the grandparent comment.

> I am despondent for humanity, that so many of us are so [..] (2) incapable of actually doing their own research (instead castigating people to "do their own research", which if they did in any reasonable way would show the absurdity of belief in Q)

These two statements are contradicting each other. You should be happy about that comment, because it has a link to the full content of Q's posts, allowing people to actually do their own research. And for that matter, is actually advocating for it!

> Read the drops qmap.pub and think for yourself.

"reading the drops" isn't the sum total of the "research" one would do to see Q for what it is, and anyways, their content is not something I'm unaware of. I don't even know why I'm dignifying this with a response, since it so clearly misinterprets my previous comment. What a morass, what a mess. I hope that the future is better for you.

Here, from the article:

"That same day, she shared a separate post suggesting that Michelle Obama is secretly a man. Someone responded with skepticism: “I am still not convinced. She shows and acts evil, but a man?” Shock’s reply: “Research it.” There was a post claiming that Representative Adam Schiff had raped the body of a dead boy at the Chateau Marmont, in Los Angeles"

What research should I do here? So many "claims" from QAnon look exactly like this, and it looks like random garbage. There is nothing to "research" here because it is impossible to research all this BS. But apparently I am a "sheep" unless I prove Michelle Obama is a woman? Or any other insane claim they make up regularly every day?

Sorry, no, QAnon is garbage. No need to "research it" to know that.

Please edit your comment to remove the domain name in your final paragraph. It's bad enough that it's linked above without it being repeated.

Done.

I read the article and it examines multiple QAnon claims made over time. I have also seen lots of QAnon claims not on this article and it seems the "thousands" of posts from supporters of QAnon is just mass-generated garbage with no truth. Made out of thin air.

I am thinking for myself, and when I see QAnon, I don't see a group that is doing any thinking at all. The "drops" you talk about are meaningless garbage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com