Social Qanon Megathread V1

[HOLA]

Best part about the white supremacy thing is how his favorite writer was posting racist stuff online.

"This is a hoax, just like the Russia hoax. It’s a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power. I’ve lived here 50 years and I’ve never met anybody, not one person who ascribes to white supremacy. I don’t know a single person who thinks that’s a good idea.”

And then...

Ooops!

 

[M3t4tr0n]

"This is a hoax, just like the Russia hoax. It’s a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power. I’ve lived here 50 years and I’ve never met anybody, not one person who ascribes to white supremacy. I don’t know a single person who thinks that’s a good idea.”

And then...

Ooops!

 

[Jack V Savage]

i call things that are blatantly not true lies. if you want to call them misstatements that's ok with me. but here i said they were "propagandists". they are. but if you want to say they are mostly or for the most part unknowing propagandists or victims of propaganda that would also be ok with me.

Yes, I know that you have a history of accusing people of lying randomly if they upset you.

the point i am making and that others see clearly when i do is that msm is wrong often as a matter of course and have been historically and that is a normal part of how they operate.

No organization is 100% accurate, as that is not humanly possible. But the MSM has extremely high standards for accuracy and has evolved a set of practices that are extremely well-crafted to advance the goal of accuracy. As was pointed out in another piece that you refused to read, one of the big challenges is that precisely because the MSM is so credible, bad actors try to lie to them to launder their own false claims. But even there, they have practices that reduce the success of that strategy. Where C&H go is not to accuracy or honesty (separate goals, of course, as one can be honest but not accurate) but to perspective. The idea is that the structures in place in newsgathering work to prevent a sort of deeper analysis of the system. For example, it's taken for granted that U.S. interests should be primary when it comes to foreign policy.

this is why many people feel that just calling people on the right stupid or "crazy ct people" as you often do without addressing this propaganda model, is unthinking.

To be clear, there are a lot of stupid CTers on the left, too. And, yes, one cannot hope to advance a reasonable discussion with CTers because they do not look at the world in a reasonable way, and CTism itself acts as a kind of defense against reason.

addressing the deeply ingrained blindness of and unreliability of msm including such prestigious newspapers as the new york times and washington post and many others is the cruz of my position though. we need to admit it honestly and often, especially to those on the right who see it but are then drawn into even worse lies and misinformation because of it.

Are you aware of any organization that more reliably reports facts than the two papers you listed? Maybe the LA Times? Further, as I noted earlier, it's not inaccuracy but accuracy when it contradicts bias that causes mistrust. A hypothetical paper that never made a mistake and gave all issues weight in proportion to their importance would be hated by both the nutter left (people like Dore, Ball, West, etc.) and most of the right.

 

[Pinyin]

It's just an idea.

actually it's a quantum AI. Quantum computing. qbits.

now ask yourself this, how many corporations and or governments have this technology? only a handful.

of that handful, how many have a history of using psychological warfare against their own population to create false insurrections in order to further the policies of a stasi police state?

 

[terrapin]

Yes, I know that you have a history of accusing people of lying randomly if they upset you.



No organization is 100% accurate, as that is not humanly possible. But the MSM has extremely high standards for accuracy and has evolved a set of practices that are extremely well-crafted to advance the goal of accuracy. As was pointed out in another piece that you refused to read, one of the big challenges is that precisely because the MSM is so credible, bad actors try to lie to them to launder their own false claims. But even there, they have practices that reduce the success of that strategy. Where C&H go is not to accuracy or honesty (separate goals, of course, as one can be honest but not accurate) but to perspective. The idea is that the structures in place in newsgathering work to prevent a sort of deeper analysis of the system. For example, it's taken for granted that U.S. interests should be primary when it comes to foreign policy.



To be clear, there are a lot of stupid CTers on the left, too. And, yes, one cannot hope to advance a reasonable discussion with CTers because they do not look at the world in a reasonable way, and CTism itself acts as a kind of defense against reason.



Are you aware of any organization that more reliably reports facts than the two papers you listed? Maybe the LA Times? Further, as I noted earlier, it's not inaccuracy but accuracy when it contradicts bias that causes mistrust. A hypothetical paper that never made a mistake and gave all issues weight in proportion to their importance would be hated by both the nutter left (people like Dore, Ball, West, etc.) and most of the right.

now it is clear that you are the one who does not understand noam chomsky and what he wrote. msm is wrong a lot, about most things as demonstrated meticulously in the book we are discussing.

msm according to chomsky are a propaganda wing of the government and corporations. that is the purpose they serve according to his meticulously sourced work.

you may have also failed to read the section in his book about the great lengths that msm and legislators go to to bankrupt or srunt the growth of or emergence of publications that are not subject to or can see through the 5 filters.

the bulk of manufacturing concent is filled with examples of these msm publications getting it very very wrong.


finally. the failure of msm to address the facts presented by chomsly and correct them is a moral problem even if the direct awareness of the problem lies at the top.

 

[HOLA]

we can all admit that him saying "they don't even have a website!" is pretty funny, right? No one does phony incredulity like the Tuckster

"I lost my Hunter Biden conspiracy in the mail!"

"Oh, I found it again, but let's leave Hunter alone now."

 

[HOLA]

Can you link me to some Qanon content? I'd like to see what the buzz is about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

The only time I hear about Q anon it’s from the left msm or left people ..

Has there been one person in WR that was about Q anon ?

^
^

polls are good again everyone!!! I repeat, POLLS are GOOD AGAIN EVERYONE!!

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

I actually don't really get what Qanon is. I hear it brought up a lot of course, but what it actually is, I have no idea.

someone on here was accusing me of believing in Qanon. that was the first id heard of it.
something about pedophiles and the globalist elites, thats what i know.

 

[Jack V Savage]

now it is clear that you are the one who does not understand noam chomsky and what he wrote. msm is wrong a lot, about most things as demonstrated meticulously in the book we are discussing.

When you say that they are wrong about most things, do you mean that if I open, say, today's NYT, you're saying that a majority of the factual claims are incorrect? Because that is clearly insane. The actual percentage of distinct factual claims that are accurate is well over 99% (and if any errors are found, they will be promptly corrected). Chomsky would agree with me on that.

msm according to chomsky are a propaganda wing of the government and corporations. that is the purpose they serve according to his meticulously sourced work.

In the sense that they don't promote socialism, right?

 

[Loiosh]

Sorry bro, TDS isn't a thing. I checked every where and couldn't find it.

TDS continues to be a huge problem within the Republican party.

Symptoms include gullibility and cannibalism.

 

[AWilder]

Feigning ignorance to make it seem like it's much ado about nothing. Just like he does with white supremacy. And there will be sherdoggers, with a confederate flag adorning their wall and with a Q sticker on their laptop, who think Tucker did a great job with this segment.

Ftfy, and they will post "what is Q?"

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Did the left fall for a meme again?

 

[Loiosh]

Did the left fall for a meme again?

Pretty sure it was the right that followed the meme right through the capitol gates into federal prison.

Cause they're, you know, stupid.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

I've certainly yet to meet a single Q person.

Q is for sure completely over hyped and blown out of proportion by the media.

Maybe, but I have met multiple whom I work with who regurgitate the theories, so our experiences balances out so maybe not over hyped either.

 

[Jar of Flies]

Feigning ignorance to make it seem like it's much ado about nothing.

That’s literally what half the people posting in this thread are doing.

 

[Jar of Flies]

Did the left fall for a meme again?

Fox News fans are way too smart to fall for something as shallow and patronizing as a meme.

 

[terrapin]

When you say that they are wrong about most things, do you mean that if I open, say, today's NYT, you're saying that a majority of the factual claims are incorrect? Because that is clearly insane. The actual percentage of distinct factual claims that are accurate is well over 99% (and if any errors are found, they will be promptly corrected). Chomsky would agree with me on that.



In the sense that they don't promote socialism, right?

Im saying that the 5 filters lead them to misframe issues whenever

When you say that they are wrong about most things, do you mean that if I open, say, today's NYT, you're saying that a majority of the factual claims are incorrect? Because that is clearly insane. The actual percentage of distinct factual claims that are accurate is well over 99% (and if any errors are found, they will be promptly corrected). Chomsky would agree with me on that.



In the sense that they don't promote socialism, right?

now i think it is very clear that you have not read his book...... we are discussing his book right now, a book that you claim to have read and claim i have not read and claim that you understand and i do not.

why are you asking simple minded questions like the above if you have read it? if you have forgotten the parameters by which chomsky demonstrates very clearly that the new york times and many other supposedly unbiased publications get things wrong as a matter of course then i suggest you go back and read the book and we can then discuss it.

you claim to understand his work better than me jack. you tell me in what way we can expect the new york times to be wrong and then ill let you know what you have missed afterwards.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

there have been many...and they often employ the same argument,

"who is their leader? what is their chain of command? where are their headquarters? who is their leader?"

and when anyone posits the same questions about Qanon, you get an entirely different reaction.
It's amusing to see their responses when you utilize their own forms of argumentation.

@Kandyland is a brain dead dork that has an obsession with me.

I dont make arguments like that, and I didn't say ANTIFA doesn't exist.
Making direct comparisons of Qanon, ANTIFA, and BLM is foolish. They are all entirely separate things that shouldn't be lumped into together as right and left wing versions of one another, because they aren't. There are issues and ideologies behind them that don't neatly line up under Democrat or Republican.
The constant need to "look for both sides" on these things makes analyzing and understanding any of them impossible.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Im saying that the 5 filters lead them to misframe issues whenever

now i think it is very clear that you have not read his book...... we are discussing his book right now, a book that you claim to have read and claim i have not read and claim that you understand and i do not.

why are you asking simple minded questions like the above if you have read it? if you have forgotten the parameters by which chomsky demonstrates very clearly that the new york times and many other supposedly unbiased publications get things wrong as a matter of course then i suggest you go back and read the book and we can then discuss it.

you claim to understand his work better than me jack. you tell me in what way we can expect the new york times to be wrong and then ill let you know what you have missed afterwards.

I'm talking to you and responding to the comments you're making. As I said, I know Chomsky agrees with me on this. I want you to make your own views more clear. When you say that they are wrong about most things, do you mean that if I open, say, today's NYT, you're saying that a majority of the factual claims are incorrect?