8 Chan QAnon Board Deleted

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

A broken clock is right 2 times a day.

Multiple times you say? Why not every time?

a reply to: daskakik

That's right, both. Though I was unclear because I didn't mean that hope is destroyed, more like it's being channeled.

I don't know about the second part. Obama supporters wanted change too AFAIK. I agree they're the same as Trump fans but Q is more of an underground thing, can't really compare them. But I'd say they are more pure of heart, yeah. Edit: Sorry to backtrack since someone starred me already, but I don't know. Is it even meaningful to compare them like I did? I just thought they must be because they're more suspicious and more anti-establishment. It's the right spirit at least. But also more naive I'd say.

a reply to: MRuss

Q is a game. It's meant to fill the void while you're waiting for that sweet justice that will likely never come. It's a group of people posting. They are white house insiders. But mostly they're court jesters.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD
Cheers

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: aethertek

There is no difference and the only reasons all of those people have to believe what "Q" says is confirmation bias and pure desire to believe.

It's no different than how many people reacted to John Titor.

Or Barack Obama.

He was the Lightbringer that promised to deliver us Hope & Change. He was going to end the wars -- first thing -- and save millions of lives. He was going to undo the Patriot Act and restore our civil liberties.

No one did hope-porn like Obama. And the media peddled his false hope 24/7.

Is it that bad that people entertain the 'Q' thing? I understand your point about some people fixating on p gate kind of stuff...but there are so many people in the 'Q' threads that are not so fixated...some even seem completely uninterested in that.

At least 'Q' isn't running for President and isn't being peddled by the MSM.

I think it's totally appropriate to see the 'Q' stuff discussed in online forums. I trust the mods will remove anything that is defamatory. And, to be honest, I find 'Q' more believable and interesting than Obama.

Obama was dangerous because he was given real power. 'Q' is just a waste of hope, at the very worst.

For now, anyway.

The same thing could be said about Trump, or any other politician for that matter. So I find it odd that you would point out Obama. Why Obama?

And people are free to entertain this Q stuff, as long as they understand none of it proven and Q could be just some boob trolling the internet. Sadly, many believe it is completely true and this is how the Deep State and the Left will be taken down.

Please...that is fantasy.

It is insulting to the intelligence that myself and others have to point out that none of this has been proven, yet are put in a position in which we have to deal with "believers" that refuse to acknowledge something so simple.

a reply to: Chadwickus

A broken clock is right 2 times a day.

I love it when folks put that out there without realizing how infinitesimally small the period of time is that proverbial "stopped clock " is right twice a day . And , almost immediately tossed out with the trash .
Not to mention that is a false statement and not applicable to all clocks as some have date as well . Meaning they are only right every 4-7 years .

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

A broken clock is right 2 times a day.

Multiple times you say? Why not every time?

every time as in every post? No

multiple times=every time the intervals were bracketed, the tweets coincided. there were no times that I saw that intervals were bracketed and tweets didn't coincide.


~OveR

a reply to: introvert
ugh, I don't know why I'm doing this but...

Please...that is fantasy.

So, I guess you've studied this hard and can debunk the whole thing? Cool. Post your info because your opinion proves nothing.

And people are free to entertain this Q stuff, as long as they understand none of it proven and Q could be just some boob trolling the internet.

I understand. This statement shows that you do not.

It is insulting to the intelligence that myself and others have to point out that none of this has been proven, yet are put in a position in which we have to deal with "believers" that refuse to acknowledge something so simple.

I'm really sorry you feel that your intelligence is insulted by a "fantasy" and that you have to deal with "believers" that don't agree with you.

a reply to: daskakik

There is nothing wrong with promising people change as long as that person delivers. Obama failed to deliver.

Obama was doomed from the beginning because as I said "hope" is never a strategy. Obama had zero strategy for making his early assertions a reality other than simply to EO his way into socially scripted change. Obama's sole goal during his administration was the largest tax program in US history and he pushed it under the guise of Obama Care. Most people think Obama Care was about health care when it could be further from the truth.

Trump's campaign platform and his subsequent actual actions and actual results were about legitimate change. Change that was necessary due to the absolute jack assery of the Obama administration.

You can't even compare Trump's message of change to Obama's because Trump's change is a direct result of the Obama administration's train wreck.

I understand the correlation you are attempting to draw but those dots do no in anyway connect.

Q is nothing but an aside to the change Trump is implementing. His way of letting the deeply rooted deep state they are under watchful eyes and change is not only coming but actually occurring. I find Q mildly interesting at times and oddly entertaining but I do not believe people place much faith in what Q says. Aside from a a handful of faithful followers his message go largely unnoticed.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

So, I guess you've studied this hard and can debunk the whole thing? Cool. Post your info because your opinion proves nothing.

If none of it can be proven and people truly believe it, it is fantasy.

I understand. This statement shows that you do not.

That makes no sense.

I'm really sorry you feel that your intelligence is insulted by a "fantasy" and that you have to deal with "believers" that don't agree with you.

How did you come up with the idea it had anything to do with people not agreeing with me?

My intelligence is insulted by those that try to push this Q nonsense of as being truth and fact.

It's become almost it's own nutty religion.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Who are Alice and neo? I thought you were going wonderland and matrix on me.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: aethertek

Wow this is become LA LA Land nonsense, Dunning Kruger in all it's disheartening glory.

Go talk to some of the folks over in the Q thread. Some actually believe they are in contact with him and are updated on his movements around the globe, while he travels to fight against the Leftist pedo satanic cult that is trying to force globalism and # down our throats.

I can think of better words than LA LA to describe this Q junk.

I usually use the word "gullible". Short and cuts to the point.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
So, I guess you've studied this hard and can debunk the whole thing? Cool. Post your info because your opinion proves nothing.

Why is it on the disbelievers to debunk anything? QAnon and his gullible legions are making the claims. It is on them to prove their claims before anyone doubting them has to step up the evidence plate.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Who are Alice and neo? I thought you were going wonderland and matrix on me.

I did, I thought we were going to talk about fictional characters and how one could be "woke" by them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not trying to prove anything. I am only denying ignorance. give it a try..it can be fun sometimes.
When skeptics have read the threads and studied the Q posts and have an opinion NOT based in ignorance, then maybe people who disagree could have a meaningful and productive discussion about the topic. Until then, I'll just keep doing what I do.

~OveR

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

When skeptics have read the threads and studied the Q posts and have an opinion NOT based in ignorance, then maybe people who disagree could have a meaningful and productive discussion about the topic. Until then, I'll just keep doing what I do.

Many have done just that. The problem seems to be that people do not want their beliefs questioned.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: aethertek

Wow this is become LA LA Land nonsense, Dunning Kruger in all it's disheartening glory.

Go talk to some of the folks over in the Q thread. Some actually believe they are in contact with him and are updated on his movements around the globe, while he travels to fight against the Leftist pedo satanic cult that is trying to force globalism and # down our throats.

I can think of better words than LA LA to describe this Q junk.

I usually use the word "gullible". Short and cuts to the point.

You are being kind.

Too kind.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not trying to prove anything. I am only denying ignorance. give it a try..it can be fun sometimes.

That's EXACTLY what anyone who doesn't believe in the QAnon posts are doing. As logically, without evidence, he is as credible as a soggy fart. Though it's funny that you resort to an ad hominem against me as the very first thing you ever say to me. Classy. That is TOTALLY going to get me sympathetic to your argument... /sarc

When skeptics have read the threads and studied the Q posts and have an opinion NOT based in ignorance, then maybe people who disagree could have a meaningful and productive discussion about the topic. Until then, I'll just keep doing what I do.

~OveR

See. This is bad logic. You are making the argument that because the QAnon posts exists, that means that logical debate must no is required to discuss the legitimacy of the claims. That is bull#. Without evidence and the source being 100% anonymous then those claims aren't entitled to ANY logical or honest debate.

If a skeptic put out effort to read EVERY piece of information out there to see if it is real or not, he'd die before he finished. People lie all the time. Especially on the internet. The default position to take for an anonymous source on the internet should ALWAYS be one of skepticism until proven otherwise with hard evidence. So no, I'm not going to take the time to read any of that garbage. It doesn't deserve my attention.

Burden of proof (philosophy)

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

This is also doubly stupid because many of the very people going on and on about QAnon will refuse to read or believe MSM sources if they happen to source even ONE source as anonymous in their articles even though there are plenty of links to other articles and sources to corroborate their claims.

a reply to: MRuss >>> Something has certain people agitated and running deflection/ damage control. On another board the trolls or bots were out defending George Soros. It was very weird because everything they were saying was basically the opposite of what is known to be true. And this weekend some talking heads made the comment that George Soros would be blamed for paying for marches and demonstrations like it was a joke, but it came across that they were trying to pass it off as partisan attacks when its found out to be true. And there's a full court press against internet speech and now " fake videos"... we shouldn't believe what we see and hear. And we aren't even the ones saying it, its the Russians. Something has them agitated and we had better be ready to ignore THEM when they tell us not to believe what they've been accused of.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
first, I apologize for the ad-hominem " comment. It was uncalled for.

That's EXACTLY what anyone who doesn't believe in the QAnon posts are doing.

really? so you are speaking for everyone "who doesn't believe in the QAnon posts"?
...and from my observation, that statement is clearly not true

Without evidence and the source being 100% anonymous then those claims aren't entitled to ANY logical or honest debate.

the source was not 100% anonymous. 99% maybe but not 100%. I'm pretty sure there may be a few members here who do know who Q is. I think Q was actually at least 4 people.
so what kind of debate would be acceptable if not logical and honest?

The default position to take for an anonymous source on the internet should ALWAYS be one of skepticism until proven otherwise with hard evidence.

Skepticism was my position when I first started researching Q. Not so skeptical now but I will say that I am still skeptical about the motives behind it.

So no, I'm not going to take the time to read any of that garbage. It doesn't deserve my attention.

Well then, I guess our little conversation is finished. Good Day.

~OveR
ETA:

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

sooo...burden of proof lies with BOTH parties involved in dispute