Poll of the Day > QAnon Man KILLED his 29 y/o WIFE thinking she was Biden's TRANSGENDER DAUGHTER!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

Why is everybody ignoring that duckbear claimed QAnon started 4chan?

Because it's duckbear, he makes sure his posts are barely understandable, I'm sure he left out a "on"

Yeah, ducky once claimed that two pitbulls killed someone, then later called them a German Shepard and a Rotweiler. He gets confused very easily, his programming is still very much WIP.

Revelation34 posted...

Why is everybody ignoring that duckbear claimed QAnon started 4chan?

I just assumed "on" was dropped from the sentence as ducky doesn't bother to proof read.

And even if ducky meant it as written, it's only 1/4 accurate. The original Q started posting on 4chan, then ghosted, (unclear if it was just an anon for the lulz or if it was former general Michael Flynn) then Jim Watkins started posting as Q, before moving over to 8chan, (later renamed 8kun) as he owns the site and his son Ron runs it under the handle CodeMonkeyZ.

"Q: Into the Storm" is the name of the doc if anyone is interested, it lays out the history of 8chan to a degree, with some accuracy.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Didn't I already state this? I've never heard of qanon mentioned outside of a Full Throttle topic so I figure it started with him.

And you actually believe that "I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, so despite literally everyone telling me it gets mentioned elsewhere and trying to explain the reality of the situation to me, I'm going to believe that Duckbear made it up" is a rational thought process? Because it's really not. You not seeing it mentioned elsewhere just means you haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere. In a vacuum, that might support the assumption that it's just a GameFAQs thing (though even then, almost nobody comes here, so the notion of any broader cultural phenomenon originating here is pretty far-fetched), but when other people are telling you that assumption is wrong, you should at least be taking that as an indication that you should look into it further to confirm, even if you don't immediately accept that you're wrong.

As I said earlier, you could very easily substantiate this belief, if there were any actual reason for you to hold it. Go do that. Insisting on holding it for no other reason than "it seems like a plausible assumption, based on my extremely limited knowledge and experience of the matter" is just dumb.

adjl posted...

the notion of any broader cultural phenomenon originating here is pretty far-fetched

What broader cultural phenomenon are you referring to? You seem to be implying that there is one but as I've stated I'm unaware of it.

adjl posted...

when other people are telling you that assumption is wrong

Has anyone stated that? I think you may be too preoccupied with arguing with me and skipped a step.

adjl posted...

Insisting on holding it for no other reason than...

It really bothers you when someone has a thought you don't agree with, doesn't it?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What broader cultural phenomenon are you referring to?

Specifically, Qanon being mentioned in society at large, but that generally refers to the idea that the goings-on on GameFAQs might influence anything anywhere else.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Has anyone stated that?

Pretty much everyone interacting with you in this discussion has done so, directly or indirectly.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It really bothers you when someone has a thought you don't agree with, doesn't it?

Not particularly. I just don't hesitate to tell people they're thinking the wrong things when they're thinking the wrong things.

adjl posted...

Specifically, Qanon being mentioned in society at large,

That would contradict my statement that I've never heard of qanon mentioned outside of a Full Throttle topic. Like I said, I'm unaware of that happening. So it must not be as broad as you think it is.

adjl posted...

Pretty much everyone interacting with you in this discussion has done so, directly or indirectly.

BlackScythe0 said something about KoolAid and watching Fox New. That then evolved into a discussion about trust in media.

Metalsonic66 laughed and said I was no more credible than the news I distrust. Which is fine because I'm not telling people what to think.

Kody asked questions for clarification and mentioned a documentary he saw. He's the only one who indicated they saw qanon discussed somewhere else.

Even you, adjl, have only implied that it is while lacking any example. Knowing you I figure you're just being argumentative.

adjl posted...

Not particularly.

Then why keep arguing over something that doesn't matter?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That would contradict my statement that I've never heard of qanon mentioned outside of a Full Throttle topic. Like I said, I'm unaware of that happening.

If not in this topic (I don't remember and can't be bothered to check), you have on other occasions said something to the effect of "maybe those other people heard about it from Full Throttle."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 said something about KoolAid and watching Fox New. That then evolved into a discussion about trust in media.

Metalsonic66 laughed and said I was no more credible than the news I distrust. Which is fine because I'm not telling people what to think.

Both of these responses are because they think it's ridiculous for you to believe Qanon is exclusively a duckbear.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Even you, adjl, have only implied that it is while lacking any example.

I figured the implication was enough, but if you want a more concrete example, my previous comment that Duckbear mostly just regurgitates Dailymail articles should lead you to the realization that any topic he makes about Qanon probably corresponds to a Dailymail article that discussed it first.

Of course, if you're going to categorically dismiss every news source as being false, citing news sources that comment on the matter isn't likely to sway you, but that's mostly a you problem.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then why keep arguing over something that doesn't matter?

I don't think it's particularly likely that your beliefs are ever going to have a direct practical impact on the world, since you seem pretty distantly divorced from every issue you have an obviously broken opinion on, but leaving them unchallenged creates the risk that somebody with more pragmatic clout might take them seriously, leading to actual consequences. Basically, you're wrong, and that might cause problems if you confuse somebody else (or try to apply them yourself, as in the case of Covid precautions).

Arv would do her

Wait is this what this topics about because Arv would hit that

do all qanon clowns perform some form of at home lobotomy as a part of jointing up or are they already that stupid?

Conner4REAL posted...

do all qanon clowns perform some form of at home lobotomy as a part of jointing up or are they already that stupid?

Combination of decades of lead poisoning and a steady diet of right wing media. It really is the decline and fall of the Roman Empire all over again.

adjl posted...

you have on other occasions said something to the effect

I probably went along with something you said for the sake of argument. For instance, you seem to think awareness of the qanon is common knowledge. To the contrary, I expect the vast majority of people have never heard of a qanon. Or, having at least heard of it, don't know what that is. The possibility that a small number do does not disprove anything.

adjl posted...

Both of these responses are because they think it's ridiculous

They may think I'm wrong, but they didn't say I was wrong.

adjl posted...

I figured the implication was enough

How long have you been starting arguments with me?

adjl posted...

Duckbear mostly just regurgitates Dailymail articles should lead you to the realization that any topic he makes about Qanon probably corresponds to a Dailymail article that discussed it first.

You're not actually paying attention, are you?

Post #42 - not unprecedented for him to do something unique with the story he posts.

Or, as I also already posited, it looped back around. Full Throttle posted details about a Daily Mail article and made fun of someone by making up a conspiracy theory they bought into. While someone browses the topic another person looking over their shoulder reads some of it without knowing the context of who Full Throttle is. That person comments directly to a similar news article. Now the news media buy into the conspiracy theory.

This guy is seriously attempting to argue that the media is all reporting on something duckbear made up.

BlackScythe0 posted...

This guy is seriously attempting to argue that the media is all reporting on something duckbear made up.

Yeah, adjl even called it a broader cultural phenomenon.

I didn't know duckbear had control over mainstream media. I mean even your own media sources have articles on them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/qanon-what-to-know

BlackScythe0 posted...

even your own media sources have articles on them.

I have media sources?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I probably went along with something you said for the sake of argument.

It was pretty explicitly "other people know about this? Maybe they heard about it from Full Throttle." I believe my response was "do you really think anyone outside of GameFAQs knows who Duckbear is?", to which you replied with "I don't even know who Duckbear is." My rough sense is that that particular example happened 1-2 months ago, but my sense of time is pretty wonky these days, so I expect that's off.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

To the contrary, I expect the vast majority of people have never heard of a qanon.

What is your basis for expecting that? Furthermore, what bearing do the experiences of the vast majority of people have on something's existence or validity? The vast majority of people have never heard of Rocket: Robot on Wheels for the N64, but that was a great game that doesn't stop existing just because it was obscure.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They may think I'm wrong, but they didn't say I was wrong.

Subtext, yo.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're not actually paying attention, are you?

Post #42 - not unprecedented for him to do something unique with the story he posts.

He interjects opinions, not usually information. Occasionally he will create new semantic content, but that's usually because he's so bad at writing that his efforts to paraphrase result in accidentally saying something new/different. It is quite unprecedented for him to fabricate an entire pseudo-organization out of whole cloth.

Moreover, even if he had synthesized this information himself, that's a belief you could very easily verify by looking up the Dailymail article he pulled this topic from:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10503641/QAnon-follower-45-murdered-wife-29-thought-sex-trafficking-CIA-asset.html

Oh look, Dailymail talked about Qanon all on their own in discussing this incident. I guess that means your baseless assumption was incorrect. Who knew?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Or, as I also already posited, it looped back around. Full Throttle posted details about a Daily Mail article and made fun of someone by making up a conspiracy theory they bought into. While someone browses the topic another person looking over their shoulder reads some of it without knowing the context of who Full Throttle is. That person comments directly to a similar news article. Now the news media buy into the conspiracy theory.

Speaking of insane conspiracy theories...

If you genuinely believe that sequence of events is plausible despite everybody telling you you're wrong (since implicit speech seems to be failing, I'll spell it out for you: There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that Duckbear made up Qanon), you can do the research to substantiate it yourself. Go to the GameFAQs log site, sift through all topics by Full Throttle and mrduckbear (they are one and the same) to find his earliest mention of Qanon, then find the Dailymail article that corresponds to that topic. I guarantee the article will predate the topic, debunking your theory in its entirety. If it does not, then and only then will I accept the possibility that your belief has any basis in reality. Until then, you should not act like it does any more than you should act like gravity is a repulsive force.

What you have done is come up with an assumption that lines up with your extremely limited personal experience (that is, "I haven't seen anyone but duckbear post about Qanon, so it's probably something he made up") and decided you're comfortable with that and don't want to think about the matter any further. You have not substantiated that belief. You have not put any actual consideration into that belief. You have responded to people challenging that belief by saying nothing more than "It could still be true so I'm not going to change my mind." That's not how logic and empirical reasoning work. That's not a functional, healthy way to live your life and develop beliefs. So stop it.

adjl posted...

It was pretty explicitly "other people know about this? Maybe they heard about it from Full Throttle."

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

adjl posted...

What is your basis for expecting that?

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

adjl posted...

The vast majority of people have never heard of Rocket: Robot

So far no one has tried to convince me that Rocket: Robot is responsibly for the drop in trust of news media. It's more believable that it exists because no one is attributing anything remarkable to it. However, since so many people distrust the media they should also be aware of the thing responsible.

adjl posted...

Oh look, Dailymail talked about Qanon all on their own in discussing this incident. I guess that means your baseless assumption was incorrect. Who knew?

Published: 15:17 EST, 11 February 2022
You and I have discussed this subject prior to that article being made available. Clearly Full Throttle didn't invent it in this topic. This does not mean that he didn't invent it in an earlier topic. The evidence that they are aware of it now doesn't indicate when they became aware of it. Nor does that tell us who mentioned it first.

adjl posted...

Go to the GameFAQs log site, sift through all topics by Full Throttle and mrduckbear (they are one and the same) to find his earliest mention of Qanon, then find the Dailymail article that corresponds to that topic. I guarantee the article will predate the topic, debunking your theory in its entirety.

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

adjl posted...

You have not substantiated that belief. You have not put any actual consideration into that belief.

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. Those are the basic the facts we disagree on. Full Throttle inventing it is based on Full Throttle topics being the place where it has the most recognition and discussion.

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.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I have media sources?

Yea because you're full of shit.

adjl posted...

And been wrong.

So I was wrong about other people knowing about it? That's the part I agreed to for the sake of argument. Now you're saying when I agreed with you I was wrong? OK, then, fewer people have heard about it than I thought.

adjl posted...

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

I accounted for this. The number of mentions doesn't indicate which mention came first.

adjl posted...

you can do a modicum of additional research for yourself

Why? Your assertion is that it would be counter productive. What would be my reason to do that?

adjl posted...

Nobody's trying to convince you that Qanon is responsible for a drop in the trust of news media.

BlackScythe0 suggested that not trusting reporting about the election is the result of being influenced by a conspiracy theory that qanon is associated with.

adjl posted...

You are responsible for proving the point you are trying to make.

I haven't been trying to make a point. All I've had to so far is explain how weak your arguments are. You're the one trying to change my perspective on the subject. So the responsibility is yours.

adjl posted...

That's not refuting arguments.

In the last argument you started with me you weren't even discussing the same subject I was but claimed you had proven me wrong. If you can just declare that then so can I. Your argument is refuted.

adjl posted...

but when people give examples of other, earlier books that feature wizards

You have yet to establish that your other examples are earlier. Thus, this is not a suitable analogy.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/0/2/AAFUswAAC7hm.jpg

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So I was wrong about other people knowing about it?

No, you were wrong about them hearing about it from Duckbear. You were also wrong about how many other people know about it, but that's beside the point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I accounted for this. The number of mentions doesn't indicate which mention came first.

I didn't say that it did. I said that it should cause you to wonder if your belief was accurate. Those other mentions also describe empirically verifiable things that Qanon is doing in the real world, as opposed to just name-dropping it, so that should also cause you to question your belief that somebody just saw the name in a Duckbear post and decided to blame random stuff on it for... reasons?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why? Your assertion is that it would be counter productive. What would be my reason to do that?

It's counterproductive if your goal is to be able to claim Internet victory because technically nobody has proven you wrong yet (mostly because you've established a near-unfalsifiable premise that would be far more work than it's worth to dismantle). If your goal is to gain some basic understanding of the world around you, however, it's quite the opposite of counterproductive. Personally, I think that's a much better goal, but who am I to promote self-improvement over Internet points that you give yourself?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 suggested that not trusting reporting about the election is the result of being influenced by a conspiracy theory that qanon is associated with.

Specifically, a certain group of people trust the Qanon conspiracy more than they trust the media because the conspiracy told them what they wanted to believe. That's considerably more nuanced than "Qanon exists, so people don't trust the news anymore."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I haven't been trying to make a point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think QAnon isn't an actual thing and all stories about it are made up by Full Throttle.

That's very unambiguously you claiming that Qanon doesn't exist and was made up by Duckbear. Heck, that's you saying that every story about it is made up by him, which I notice you've quietly walked back now that a bunch of stories not made by him have been brought up. That's a point, dude. You cannot frame it any other way.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You have yet to establish that your other examples are earlier. Thus, this is not a suitable analogy.

Therein, we arrive at the key difference between my analogy and this situation: It's significantly more labour-intensive to find Duckbear's earliest mention of Qanon than it is to find wizards in pre-1965 media. In both cases, literally everybody that isn't you knows you're talking nonsense. Nobody actually needs to verify that belief for themselves or anyone else; the issue is purely a matter of trying to convince you. In the case of my analogy, it would take about 10 seconds to write "LotR came out a decade before she was born," and possibly another 10 to confirm LotR's publication date (Tolkein also did not invent wizards, but that's an easy example that serves the necessary purpose without needing to research the actual history of the concept). Sifting through archived Duckbear topics, however, is very substantial amount of work (he makes a LOT of topics).

The analogy is perfect. The only difference is the amount of effort it would take to prove how stupid your claim is (which subsequently affects how willing people are to exert that effort), which influences nothing about the underlying logic needed to establish the analogy. Nobody cares enough about you to put that much work in, so instead we all just tell you your claim is stupid and give you the resources you need to find that reality for yourself.

adjl posted...
No, you were wrong about them hearing about it from Duckbear.
I don't recall saying they heard about it -from- Duckbear. If I did I've since explained how it could still originate with Duckbear while other people can learn about it outside of the original context.

I didn't say that it did.
I know, despite outlining how to determine which mention came first you started treating it as unnecessary and that the number of mentions alone proves anything.

Those other mentions also describe empirically verifiable things that Qanon is doing in the real world
So if someone says something it must be true? Then it must be true that Full Throttle invented qanon since I said it.

It's counterproductive if your goal is to be able to claim Internet victory
My goal was to post in a topic that caught my interest. Now, my goal is to make you regret arguing with me.

a certain group of people trust the Qanon conspiracy more than they trust the media
That's not saying much. I know of a bus stop where there's regularly a drunk man yelling unintelligibly. I would trust him more than I trust the media.

That's very unambiguously you claiming that Qanon doesn't exist and was made up by Duckbear.
Yes. What that is not, is me trying trying to convince other people of that. To back up your earlier statement you have to demonstrate that I'm trying to prove something.

The analogy is perfect.
You compared a situation were the earliness has been determined to a situation where the earliness has not been determined. The amount of work to reach that determination doesn't matter. Whether the determination has been made is the crucial aspect that makes the analogy flawed.

Nobody cares enough about you to put that much work in
Says the person who starts an argument with me over something like this.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't recall saying they heard about it -from- Duckbear.

Your belief in the "somebody read a Duckbear post" theory hinges on that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I know, despite outlining how to determine which mention came first you started treating it as unnecessary and that the number of mentions alone proves anything.

"It should cause you to wonder if your belief is accurate" is not in any way equivalent to "it proves that your belief is wrong."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if someone says something it must be true?

Are you ignoring "empirically verifiable" because you don't know what it means, or because you don't know how to make the point you're trying to make while incorporating it?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now, my goal is to make you regret arguing with me.

Gaining a basic understanding of the world around you is a better goal than that, too.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not saying much. I know of a bus stop where there's regularly a drunk man yelling unintelligibly. I would trust him more than I trust the media.

That sounds like a you problem.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes. What that is not, is me trying trying to convince other people of that. To back up your earlier statement you have to demonstrate that I'm trying to prove something.

If you make a claim, you're trying to prove something. That you're unwilling to follow it up is just you having commitment issues, not anything that reflects the underlying logic of the statement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You compared a situation were the earliness has been determined to a situation where the earliness has not been determined. The amount of work to reach that determination doesn't matter. Whether the determination has been made is the crucial aspect that makes the analogy flawed.

But the chronology has been determined. As I said, everybody already knows your claim is nonsense. That's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that Rowling did not invent wizards: Nobody needs to look up her birth date and the publication dates of other fantasy media to know this. Similarly, nobody needs to look up Duckbear's posting history to know that he didn't invent Qanon, except apparently you.

The analogy is describing how absurd your claim is, not how conclusively those disagreeing have proven it to be absurd. If you'd like an analogy of your request for conclusive proof, consider somebody walking into a university-level calculus class and demanding that the teacher complete a full mathematical proof of every involved concept (including basic arithmetic) before proceeding with the lecture material: You're obviously just wasting everybody's time for no reason.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
Says the person who starts an argument with me over something like this.

Despite your arbitrary insistence on clinging to nonsense and refusing to learn how to form properly substantiated beliefs like a functional human being, this is still substantially less work than proving that Duckbear didn't invent Qanon would be.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 suggested that not trusting reporting about the election is the result of being influenced by a conspiracy theory that qanon is associated with.

And this is why you're full of shit. You're just blatantly lying, I never talked about "reporting about the election" you did. I talked about the results of the election, the results have nothing to do with reporting. And yea the people on facebook talking about how it's fake and how they know someone who knows someone who might have heard something is a conspiracy theory and it is associated with qanon.

BlackScythe0 posted...

And this is why you're full of shit. You're just blatantly lying, I never talking about "reporting about the election" you did. I talked about the results of the election, the results have nothing to do with reporting. And yea the people on facebook talking about how it's fake and how they know someone who knows someone who might have heard something is a conspiracy theory and it is associated with qanon.

That too. They doubted much more than just what the news said the election results were.

adjl posted...

Your belief in the "somebody read a Duckbear post" theory hinges on that.

Not really. Someone had to read a Duckbear post. But a second person could have heard about from the person who read it. I suggested that it originated with Duckbear, but that does not mean every person must have had direct contact to learn of it.

"It should cause you to wonder if your belief is accurate" is not in any way equivalent to "it proves that your belief is wrong."
Earlier you said "Exploring any one of those will tell you all but conclusively".
Now you're backtracking that to "cause you to wonder".
As I said before, I accounted for that in my premise. So it, on it's own, neither proves anything nor causes me to wonder.

Are you ignoring "empirically verifiable"
No, I'm making fun of what you applied it to.

or because you don't know how to make the point you're trying to make
I've already told you, I'm not trying to make a point. I just want you to regret starting this argument.

If you make a claim, you're trying to prove something.
I like the marshmallow topping for sundaes at Stewarts. There's a statement. Are you now going to argue with me that the marshmallow topping isn't good or that other people don't like it?

That's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that Rowling did not invent wizards: Nobody needs to look up her birth date and the publication dates of other fantasy media to know this.
I still suspect that awareness of qanon is not common. Why would it be common knowledge to people who have never heard of it where it originated? In contrast I think a lot more people know what wizards are and are already familiar with works that involve them.

If you'd like an analogy of your request for conclusive proof
I never requested that. I'm just countering your arguments which you keep claiming are conclusive.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I never talked about "reporting about the election" you did.

Your first comment... well that one was about koolaid.
But your second comment was about "news far to the right of Fox."
In your third comment you mentioned the news, right wing conspiracy theories, and the election.
Unless I'm missing some connection to koolaid I thought the reporting on them by the news is what they all had in common.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not really. Someone had to read a Duckbear post.

So, yes really.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Earlier you said "Exploring any one of those will tell you all but conclusively".
Now you're backtracking that to "cause you to wonder".

That's not backtracking. Their mere existence should cause you to wonder. Exploring any of them (that is, gleaning all available semantic content from them) will lead you to something conclusive.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I'm making fun of what you applied it to.

To things that are empirically verifiable? To what else would I apply "empirically verifiable"?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I like the marshmallow topping for sundaes at Stewarts. There's a statement. Are you now going to argue with me that the marshmallow topping isn't good or that other people don't like it?

No, because that's a purely subjective statement. There's nothing to argue. If you told me that you think the marshmallow topping is made of aborted fetuses, that would warrant argument.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I still suspect that awareness of qanon is not common.

It's mentioned pretty frequently in mainstream media (which, again, there's no reason for you not to know).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why would it be common knowledge to people who have never heard of it where it originated?

Why are people who have never heard of Qanon relevant to a context in which everyone but you has heard of Qanon?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I never requested that. I'm just countering your arguments which you keep claiming are conclusive.

I'm not claiming that (most of) my arguments are conclusive. Quite the contrary: I recognize that without putting in the effort to prove the chronology of the matter, I cannot conclusively prove anything. That doesn't mean I can't get close enough for colloquial speech, which is the point of that analogy. You don't need to be able to conclusively prove something for there to be a negligible chance that believing it is a mistake.

The argument that is conclusive, however, is that you have no basis to believe that there's no such thing as Qanon and Duckbear just makes it up for his topics. You similarly have no basis to believe that all of these other examples of the rest of the world recognizing Qanon stem from somebody reading a Duckbear post once and deciding to roll with it. These are falsifiable claims: If they are false, evidence can be found that will prove them to be false. If you wish to claim that they are false, you must therefore prove them to be false.

adjl posted...

So, yes really.

So your argument for why Duckbear can't be the source of awareness is that no one has read ever a Duckbear post?

adjl posted...

Their mere existence should cause you to wonder.

And I've explained why it doesn't.

adjl posted...

Exploring any of them

Not interested.

adjl posted...

To things that are empirically verifiable?

No, to a conspiracy theory.

adjl posted...

It's mentioned pretty frequently in mainstream media

I understand you have difficulty comprehending the perspective of other people but imagine a person sitting at home watching the news.

This person is going to remember the story about the white teens that accosted a Native American man; and how months later he learned that the teens were arguing with antisemites and were confused when a Native American man took the side of the antisemites.

This person is going to remember the story about a white woman attacking a black woman on a bus and yelling racial slurs; and when they showed a video from the bus the roles were clearly reversed.

So when the news reports something about a qanon the person sitting at home is going to think to themself...
"I don't know what that is, or why the news is so adamant that the Lincoln Memorial isn't a hologram. But whatever they're saying about it is going to be the opposite of the truth."

adjl posted...

I'm not claiming that (most of) my arguments are conclusive.

I still didn't request them.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So your argument for why Duckbear can't be the source of awareness is that no one has read ever a Duckbear post?

That's not at all what I said.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And I've explained why it doesn't.

You've demonstrated why (namely, that you're really bad at processing the impact of new information on your existing beliefs), but I wouldn't say you've explained it. Explaining is generally a more explicit process.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not interested.

Yes, you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in understanding the world around you. We know.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, to a conspiracy theory.

The existence of conspiracy theories is empirically verifiable. The actions that people take on the basis of their belief in conspiracy theories are empirically verifiable. The theories themselves generally are not, since that's what makes them conspiratorially theoretical (if you can verify them, they're just facts), but I didn't say that they were.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I understand you have difficulty comprehending the perspective of other people but imagine a person sitting at home watching the news [...]

People forget most of the news they hear, unless it's personally relevant or of particular interest. Qanon's existence and relevance to current events is no more or less forgettable than most other news.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I still didn't request them.

Categorically ignoring education that you didn't request is one of the best ways to maintain the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't recommend taking that attitude.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Your first comment... well that one was about koolaid.
But your second comment was about "news far to the right of Fox."
In your third comment you mentioned the news, right wing conspiracy theories, and the election.
Unless I'm missing some connection to koolaid I thought the reporting on them by the news is what they all had in common.

I don't know what to say this is a very common saying in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
I was making unveiled comments about the wacko shit you can find on the internet where they make up fictional stories and try to pass if off as news and suggesting that as a reason you were so ignorant regarding current events. The results are the results, I never suggested reporting of the results had any impact on the results. You did, I re-read my comments I made no comments regarding the reporting of the election. I made comments accepting you would never have heard of qanon before if you never watched actual news.

Oh, good lord... are you seriously using mental illness as an insult now? Is there no low you won't sink to?
duckbear, either, I would suppose, chooses words based on things he either has been brainwashed to believe or actually experienced (some)hand...

And if he doesn't... Well, I guess he is good at ensationalism, because I would love to live in a trailer.

You know? Confined and to yourself? As opposed to some in-private zoo? Hell, it's basically a mobile home

Maybe duckbear has ties with the homeowner association or something and is mad that houses grew wheels

Why is everybody ignoring that duckbear claimed QAnon started 4chan?

("Moot point, dur hur") Interesting development. How do you ignore something that is not apparent? I would love to see your sticky notes.

Oh, I get it now, because it's actually his job

Damn, I wonder how many jobs people actually have

Hey, remember when we went through that.... "everyone is xxx's alt" meme. Was it Soma?

Was it even a memo? Meme*? O: dun dun duuuuuun

I (don't) wonder how many alts people have, this time

Oh! But if somebody kills you, just remember, there are always alts around

...I think.

I guess that was what Parasyte was about

BlackScythe0 posted...

this is a very common saying in the US

I'm aware of the saying in the context of joining a cult. That's what confuses me about your use of it. My outlook is to distrust everyone, not put faith in someone else.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I never suggested reporting of the results had any impact on the results. You did,

I think it would be more accurate to say I suggested that reporting of the results lead to people not believing the results. The results are from people voting. Reporting on how they voted wouldn't retroactively change their votes. To the contrary, how it's reported can effect acceptance that 'what they say are the results' are 'the actual results'.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I re-read my comments I made no comments regarding the reporting of the election.

I must have inferred that. Since that was not your intended meaning how did Fox News fit into your comments?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm aware of the saying in the context of joining a cult. That's what confuses me about your use of it. My outlook is to distrust everyone, not put faith in someone else.

It's not generally used so literally as to imply joining a cult so much as it's used to describe buying into some ludicrous nonsense. That's usually nonsense somebody else has come up with, particularly conspiracy theories and political extremism, but there's nothing inherent in the concept that means you can't come up with your own nonsense to believe in and have it describe that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm aware of the saying in the context of joining a cult. That's what confuses me about your use of it. My outlook is to distrust everyone, not put faith in someone else.

I think it would be more accurate to say I suggested that reporting of the results lead to people not believing the results. The results are from people voting. Reporting on how they voted wouldn't retroactively change their votes. To the contrary, how it's reported can effect acceptance that 'what they say are the results' are 'the actual results'.

I must have inferred that. Since that was not your intended meaning how did Fox News fit into your comments?

... The saying wouldn't be popular if it was used to apply only to people joining cults. Despite you claiming to be against everyone you are parroting all the nonsense from one side, the side that rejects reality. Which is where the Fox News came from, you're parroting nonsense while claiming to be a unique and independent thinker.

BlackScythe0 posted...

while claiming to be a unique and independent thinker.

I don't recall making that claim.

Mark Twain
There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages."

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

The wheel, it turns, it comes around. It makes an ancient rumbling sound.

The mainstream media is so because it promotes ideas that are common place. When you reject the common place that leaves a limited number of alternatives. For that reason those who likewise reject the common place will appear to think alike despite doing so independently of each other.

That's nice, but it doesn't make your ridiculous, baseless theory any less ridiculous and baseless.

adjl posted...

That's nice, but it doesn't make your ridiculous, baseless theory any less ridiculous and baseless.

Okay. Your opinion on this doesn't matter to me.

That is a common refrain among people who enjoy being wrong.

That's almost hilarious that this topic stopped 4 days ago, between both of the users I highlighted as "right"

SKARDAVNELNATE - "u right too"

adjl - "right"

You guys should see the screenshot, two right people going back and forth about
So I guess by basic inference, skard may enjoy being wrong even though I thought he was right.

Is that correct? Because your right status is in jeopardy

Just be knowledgable of the fact that I skip -Tooooons- of posts.

Ah shit, they might just flip it back at me to not care on a deeper level

Kinship is weird!