You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: QAnon PsyOp Now Being Ripped Apart After Being Used to Discredit The Truth Community....(It Always Had the Vibe of CIA To It)
The main point I was making was that the people who claimed Q group was taken over or whatever, are those people who have been pointed at by Q as being paytriots, people who were trying to profit off the movement.
The problem here is that is a generalization. Those are not the only people saying that. Making categorical assumptions about a group of people based upon the traits of a few or even a lot of the members is generally false. Aka a Generalization, a stereotype is a form of that.
I push back, because I know the vast majority of generalizations are false.
I stated it generally, yes.
It is not a generalization though; those who were called out, they weren't called out by name, they were called out generally and exposed themselves by speaking out against it.
The prime examples are Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi.
Alex Jones hasn't stated definitively anything. Jerome Corsi did. Infowars has been rather non-commital when it comes to Q and they are not anonymous. As humans I don't agree with a lot of approaches of Alex Jones. Yet I trust him a hell of a lot more than I trust Q.
I don't think they exposed shit. ;) Think about this. Q is allowed without any censorship to speak on platforms all over the place. Some of the places that censor Alex Jones and others at Infowars like David Knight (whom I respect a lot) not only don't censor Q. At times they almost advertise for Q. shrug Read into it what you will.
If they were not anonymous they certainly would be in more danger, but I also would be able to consider motivations and other factors which we cannot know. So I disagree strongly with you on some of this.
I will admit that Q can definitely provoke my curiosity, yet a lot of what they say is stated in a way that seems leading like a tarot card reader and using a lot of already known things. So I'm not really impressed. I am more impressed with how hard the community will work to try to ascribe specific meaning to the little crumbs and snippets that Q releases.
Also, as of late they haven't been very accurate.
You are right, Jones was a fair bit more subtle. He brought in Zach around when Q started posting, and was trying to present as though he was in communication with people involved... and it was at that point where he started saying the group was compromised. Beyond that, the clearest statement (that I'm aware of) was the criticism of anonymity and not being able to verify anything.
The censorship issue, in the context, is that while Jones will often have videos posted, people that push Q mostly use memes to send the messages. Videos are pretty simple to block, and hard to conceal. Where memes, the bots can't "read" memes (Facebook managed to get AI to read the text, but cannot contextualize the image with the text) that makes the message much harder to censor.
On the note of accuracy; that's a tricky one to judge. Q posts have many targets:
There's never an indication to whom any message is sent; for example, if the aim is to get bad guys to make a bad move, you might telegraph a move to be made not because that is planned, but because that will cause a desired response in others.
I'd comment further, but beyond that point is getting too much into guess work for my comfort.