LogFAQs > #962671042

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Which sounds like something I would have said for the sake of argument.

And been wrong.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You called it a broader cultural phenomenon. In which case I expect I would have heard about it.

You haven't heard of most cultural phenomena that are broader than GameFAQs. The vast majority of people have not heard of most cultural phenomena that are broader than GameFAQs, because that's the vast majority of cultural phenomena and nobody has the time to keep up with that many phenomena.

At this point, from this topic alone, you have now heard of it in at least three non-GameFAQs contexts, one of which is a documentary that explores the movement in detail. Exploring any one of those will tell you all but conclusively that you're wrong and need to re-evaluate your belief. The mere existence of three non-GameFAQs sources being provided this easily should tell you that maybe your baseless speculation wasn't on the mark, especially where you can do a modicum of additional research for yourself and find countless others.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So far no one has tried to convince me that Rocket: Robot is responsibly for the drop in trust of news media.

Nobody's trying to convince you that Qanon is responsible for a drop in the trust of news media. Just that it exists, which you have been desperately trying to deny.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then you do it. Why should I go to that effort for something that won't benefit me?

Because that is where the onus lies for somebody that is making a claim that flies in the face of established knowledge and common sense. You are responsible for proving the point you are trying to make. You have utterly failed to do so thus far.

As for benefiting you, you seem to have a pathological inability to consider the reality outside of your very narrow personal experience in forming opinions. In general, that's very unhealthy and will get in the way of you living an enjoyable life (it likely already has), but you aren't going to overcome that by refusing to try. Let your world view be challenged. When somebody tells you new information is out there that proves you wrong, go look at it. Evaluate it, try and figure out why it's so inconsistent with your beliefs, see if you can find other data to support those inconsistencies... This is the basis for critical thinking. You will benefit from learning how to do that and becoming comfortable with the process. Quite overwhelmingly so.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And yet I continually refute your arguments against it. You say awareness of the qanon is wide spread. I say hardly anyone knows what that is. You say it's responsible for conspiracy theories. I say it doesn't really exist and it's convenient for news media to place the blame on that rather than their own actions.

That's not refuting arguments. That's stating the opposite and thinking that's somehow equally valid to an opinion that is based in logic and empirical reality. Several people have shared evidence of Qanon being recognized in contexts other than Duckbear topics. The best you have managed is "maybe they all just stem from a rumour that started from somebody seeing a Duckbear topic," which is roughly as devoid of argumentative merit as the Chewbacca Defense.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Full Throttle inventing it is based on Full Throttle topics being the place where it has the most recognition and discussion.

By what metric? Have you collected data on the viewership and engagement of other sites where Qanon has been mentioned?

To be clear, what you're doing is roughly analogous to insisting that JK Rowling invented wizards because you haven't seen them mentioned in any other books you've read. Everyone knows the only way you could possibly say that is if you've consumed almost no other fantasy media. That's very obviously wrong, but when people give examples of other, earlier books that feature wizards, you're saying the rough equivalent of "maybe their authors were talking to JK Rowling at some point before she wrote Harry Potter and she gave them the idea." You have no reason whatsoever to believe that your limited experience has been comprehensive enough to be generalized. You have even less reason to believe that your conclusions based on those generalizations are more credible than the conclusions of others that have actually been paying attention.