"Here's a reality based question that I'd like to see you address some time"
I guess you've been too busy not answering my questions or proving your claims to be true to ask it.
": Qanon... Do you agree that they are insane,"
I'll
start by saying that QAnon, is something that I consider to be such a
nothingburger that I've invested no time in researching it. If you are
going to claim they are "insane", please show me the specific evidence
of insanity. I've seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion,
but I also haven't looked. I'm sure you've done extensive research on
them and have lots of evidence.
"perhaps cultic"
Given the qualifications above, perhaps. Of course, I'd argue that many quasi mainstream movements are cultic.
"conspiracy theorists"
Again, given the above, probably. But so are the Holocaust deniers.
"who should not be trusted"
Again,
I can't speak to the trustworthiness of each individual follower, nor
am I willing to make this reckless sort of broad brushing of an entire
group of people I know very little about.
"and that they should not be supported by white evangelicals the way they are?"
I
have absolutely no idea what you consider to be "evangelicals", so have
no way to asses your question. I personally am unaware of any
"evangelicals" who are "supporters", but it's not something that's on my
radar.
I'll say that there has been a gradual trend among some
evangelicals to move away from things like discernment, apologetics, and
studies of that nature. Given that, I doesn't surprise me when
"evangelicals" are misled by all sorts of false gospels.
Since,
I suspect this is an attempt to further divert this thread from it's
topic and from your glaring failure to answer questions or prove your
claims. I will transfer this to it's own post and will move and
comments there as well.
Monday, November 23, 2020
Because Dan has nothing better to do than ask off topic questions about fringe movements
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You know, I guess, that the FBI considers them a potential terrorist threat? FBI agents in Phoenix have issued an assessment detailing what they say are the risks posed by people who believe in fringe conspiracies including Qanon and Pizzagate, which have been cited as the impetus for a series of violent incidents over the last three years. The document came in the form of an intelligence bulletin, intended for other law enforcement agencies but not for public disclosure, from a local FBI field office about how “fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometimes violent activity.” https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/local-fbi-field-office-warns-conspiracy-theory-driven-domestic-extremists-n1038441 But sure, they're nothing burgers. No worries until they attempt to kill someone... OH WAIT, they already have. Well, at least they're not black people out protesting police violence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/qanon-violence-crimes-timeline Well, at least they're not attracting cops into their ranks. Oh wait, they ARE! https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/police-officers-qanon/ Craig... " If you are going to claim they are "insane", please show me the specific evidence of insanity. " Good Lord. Craig, here is who they are/what they believe: "alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is fighting the cabal. QAnon also commonly asserts that Trump is planning a day of reckoning known as the "Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested. No part of the conspiracy claim is based in fact. QAnon supporters have accused many liberal Hollywood actors, Democratic politicians, and high-ranking government officials of being members of the cabal. They have also claimed that Trump feigned conspiracy with Russians to enlist Robert Mueller to join him in exposing the sex trafficking ring and preventing a coup d'état by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros." What part of ANY of that is sane? Is rational? Is FACT-BASED? None of it is fact-based. Is making insane claims not, by definition, insane? Do you think there is a chance in hell that ANY of that has ANY data to support it or can you dismiss this as nonsense, irrational and NOT fact-based? Did you know that half of GOP types buy into this shit? https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-of-republicans-believe-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-partly-or-mostly-true-survey-finds/ That some Qanon candidates are running/have been elected by republicans? What does it take for you to be concerned about the insanity on your side?
Dan,
Perhaps you could have figured this out all by yourself, but since you didn't, let me clue you in. Q Anon, is something that I (at this point) don't have the time, energy, or bandwidth to spend researching it.
From what little I've seen, it sounds a little like it has some assimilates to Gnosticism. In general, I don't look at movements that appear to be primarily religious/cultic as a a political issue.
I suspect that you latched on to this as a way to broad brush people who have no interest in, support for, or connection to this bunch, as one more political cudgel.
It's all yours.
Here's your problem. You dismiss this as a friends movement I say, because you dismissed it as a prince movement, you're not really worried about them so you haven't done any research. But half the GOP believes there conspiracy theories. Again, half the GOP believes there conspiracy theories. If a movement has engulfed half of the Republican party, it's no longer friends movement. It's time you and rational conservatives/ Republicans (if, indeed, you're amongst rational conservatives) start paying attention to this mass movement on your side by your comrades.
Craig... "I suspect that you latched on to this as a way to broad brush people who have no interest in, support for, or connection to this bunch..."
I'm not broad brushing half the GOP that doesn't agree with them with the other half that does believe these fantasies. I'm saying to the half who does not believe insane conspiracy theories that they need to pay attention to the other half. That's all.
Look, if half of Democrats supported forcibly replacing Biden with Bernie Sanders, I wouldn't write it off as nothing and say oh, well I'm not in that half. I would be organizing to stop such a thing from happening and denouncing those who were going outside the system. It's why I spoke out against Bill Clinton back in the day. When you have a huge swath of your party or your movement who are endorsing or believing conspiracy theories, it's time to speak up. Actually, it's past time to speak up. The time to speak up would have been back when it was only 10%.
Like that, for you.
"But half the GOP believes there conspiracy theories."
1. This is the kind of claim that normal people would provide proof for, you on the other hand...
2. This is also the time when your assumptions get you in trouble. You assume that I have some kind of allegiance to the GOP, which doesn't exist at this point. While the GOP may be "more" conservative than the DFL, it's certainly not an organization I place much trust in.
"start paying attention to this mass movement on your side"
Of course, the problem with this is that (if you are any indication) you aren't putting the same scrutiny into groups on your side of the aisle. Again, the double standard rears it's ugly head.
Look, if half the GOP suggested forcibly removing and replacing a sitting resident with a rich, old white, socialist, I'd be concerned too. Yet, I haven't seen anyone in a position of authority within the GOP suggest forcibly replacing anyone. It seems like maybe you're a bit to worried about something that could, possibly, maybe, potentially, happen and some point in the future.
Again, you don't seem to worried about those on your side who are engrossed by conspiracy theories or by the various popular narratives.
This, is why my primary allegiance is to the Truth, and to the one who is The Truth.
Maybe if you were less worried about "the other", you'd be able to dial back the hatred, vitriol, and partisan hackery.
https://www.wired.com/story/qanon-supporters-arent-quite-who-you-think-they-are/
"The phenomenon has been breathlessly described as a sort of new Tea Party, a nascent political bloc that will have lasting impact. But, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood recently reported for New York Magazine, the penetration of QAnon into Republican politics may be overblown. Not every wannabe congressperson who has retweeted some Q content is a true believer. Some are just generalized conspiracy wingnuts; others are trying to get attention. As van Zuylen-Wood discovered, “you have no idea what they really believe until you get them on the phone.”"
"Indeed, QAnon may have less to do with politics, or with Trump, than is generally assumed. Among survey takers who said they approve of it, 28 percent said they plan to vote for Joe Biden. Compare that to 17 percent of white Evangelicals who say the same."
So, more Q believers are Biden supporters than evangelicals, I guess you'd better clean the Q out of your own side then.
"There have been a small handful of reports of Q-related violence or attempted violence across the country, although far more cases of political violence have no Q connection at all. A few weeks ago, after a scurrilous attack ad falsely accused US representative Tom Malinowski (D-New Jersey) of protecting sex offenders, Malinowski said he received several death threats from QAnon supporters. (In response, last week the House of Representatives voted 371-18 to condemn QAnon.)"
Maybe the violence you've gotten so panty twisted about isn't quite so prevalent.
"QAnon defies easy summary, but its core premise is that Donald Trump is waging a secret war against a cabal of celebrities and Democratic politicians who abuse children in Satanic rituals."
While the above premise seems extreme on it's face, the Clintons and other DFL politicians have significant Epstein ties, and we've seen several DFL elected officials changed with sexual abuse of children. I'm not saying I'm buying the conspiracy, but I am saying that we've seen connections between individual DFL politicians and child sexual abuse. One example below.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/these-are-the-5-men-who-have-accused-seattle-mayor-ed-murray-of-child-sexual-abuse/
Look, If you want to get worried about this, feel free. But it seems like a conspiracy theory that's central tenet is that Trump is going to bring down some massive pedophile ring, isn't going to last once Trump leaves office. FYI, the Trump administration has been arresting quite a few sex traffickers of late, something I'd think you'd approve of.
It really is possible to oppose sex trafficking, and not buy into Q at the same time.
One single question.
Would you agree that any organization (group, etc) that is founded on something false, should be treated as you are treating Q Anon?
Would you agree that any organization (group, etc) that is founded on something false, should be treated as you are treating Q Anon?
No, not just any group.
I'm saying that ANY group that is engaging in conspiracy theories AND
the conspiracy theory is suggesting something serious (if taken seriously) like "The Catholic Church is planning to assassinate Republican politicians!!" AND
that is being taken seriously by a large portion of society
THEN we should be wary of such a group, warn people of their stupidly false claims and nutty conspiracy theories and correct those false claims vigorously when they are made.
I'm distinguishing between a relatively harmless insane false claim group (Flat Earth Society) where, 1. They're NOT taken seriously, 2. It ISN'T widespread and 3. Believing that false claim has no serious repercussions.
IF a flat earth group were suddenly being taken seriously and getting elected to office (as a Republican Q idiot was) or being placed in positions of relative authority, like NASA, THEN suddenly, the Flat Earth group SHOULD be taken seriously and warned against.
If there were a group that believed in purple unicorns, in spite of no evidence to support it, and spread rumors that the purple unicorns were coming soon to deliver us all candy and sweet lemonade, no harm no foul.
If there were a group that was being taken seriously and saying that the Democrats or Republicans were stealing the election and half of the Republicans/Democrats were believing in and there starts being talk of "taking our nation back" and civil war, THEN people need to speak out against that sort of false claim conspiracy theory group needs to be actively opposed.
Do you disagree?
Re: The suggestion I've not supported the claim about half the GOP believing in Q...
I have cited the sources speaking to how widespread belief is in Q theories. Like this...
"Majority of Republicans believe the Qanon Conspiracy is Partly or Mostly True"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-of-republicans-believe-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-partly-or-mostly-true-survey-finds/?sh=639959af5231
So, you’re saying that you don’t care if a group is founded and motivated by a lie, or lies, as long as they don’t do things that you find problematic.
Re: your mocking me for being concerned about what you were only call a fringe movement...
Given the reports somewhere around half of the GOP takes qanon pretty seriously, perhaps you should retract that attack. Saying, "Hey it's responsible be concerned when half of your group believes conspiracy theories..." is rational. Agreed?
Craig... "you’re saying that you don’t care if a group is founded and motivated by a lie, or lies, as long as they don’t do things that you find problematic."
? Do you truly not understand my position? For any people who are operating based on a lie, I'm concerned for THEM.
But if they are just an outlier, then I'm not worried about society if a small group wants to believe a lie and they're not causing harm.
The flat-earth group is a perfect example. I would worry about 100 or 1,000 people around the world or whatever the number is who believe in that... I would be somewhat concerned for them. But it's not really hurting their life and it's not hurting Society oh, so wouldn't be terribly concerned.
But if a group is spreading false claims and conspiracy theories that undermined the nation and they're being taken seriously by half of, in this case the GOP, then I am concerned for the nation.
And it's not just if I think they're believing something that's "problematic." It's about harm. If they're doing something that might cause harm.
I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person when it comes to others making bad choices or believing lies, as long as it's not causing harm to others or even them.
So, If someone is out there advocating snorting cocaine to lose weight and improve your health, then I'm concerned about that person. But if half of a political party is advocating that, I'm concerned about the nation.
Understand? Understand the difference?
I don't see what's confusing to you about this.
I’m mocking you because of the partisan blindness of your concern, and because it’s amusing to see you obsess over these groups that represent so little.
Oh, and because you’ve avoided answering questions and proving the truth of the claims you’ve made.
Then are you suggesting that any groups founded on lies, which also have captured a significant percentage of a major political party, and that pose some degree of danger, deserve this same level of scrutiny as you’ve given Q?
I have to say that this recent tendency to go after people because of their beliefs and rhetoric as opposed to their actions, is disturbing.
If you're trying to suggest (and I know you are) that BLM is somehow posing a degree of danger, then you're just a lying son of a bitch so shut the hell up.
You want to attack a justice organization while giving passes to racists, rapists, sexual predators, and those who'd corrupt our nation and the notion of a free Republic. Shame on you.
And I get that you've blinded yourself and your heart is too hard to see the Truth, so I pray for your eyes to be opened.
Good luck with that.
Craig,
Thanks for providing this post to deal with this issue Dan raised in order to further smear those who disagree with him. At least I know that barring a mistaken keystroke, you'll post my comments and links even if you disagree with them.
I've done a little digging with regard to Q (not Qanon---the "anons" are those that discuss, analyze and scrutinize the posts of Q). Some of what I found are as follows:
FBI concerns about Q are far less than what Dan needs to believe it means. To have potential for terrorist behavior doesn't mean that potential is high. "Potential" is a scale, not a definitive descriptor. DAN is potentially a terrorist. How great is that potential? That's the question. The next question is on what basis does the FBI consider those who follow Q's cryptic posts to be a threat at all?
Dan's concerns about Q is laughable when we've already seen clear cases of BLM inspired cop killing, destruction of property and assaults on Trump supporters. They're marxist ramblings inflame the passions of the stupid, the lazy and the covetous.
Dan's concerns about operating based on lies is laughable given the lie on which BLM and others operate...that racist cops are targeting black people. This is not only baseless, but shown to be false based on actual law enforcement statistics and several studies, such as that of Heather McDonald.
Dan's concerns about operating based on lies is laughable given his own false beliefs about homosexuality. There is no biblical support for his beliefs and he has never produced any, yet he operates on that lie with impunity.
Dan's concerns about conspiracy theories is hollow, as he uses the term "conspiracy theory" to dismiss Q, while doing nothing to prove which of the many things Q has said is actually proven false. Indeed, Dan doesn't even try. He does like to offer up anything that seems to align with him without actually vetting any of it. There mere fact it agrees makes it gospel.
Regarding Dan's Forbes poll, it wasn't actually Forbes that did the poll, it was the Daily Kos. But here's how their less than 1400 people were divided:
Democrat 33% Republican 27% Independent 40%
Note that once again, the Republicans are the smallest demographic. I wonder why that's always the case. Though I admit this is only a 6% difference, we have no idea which way the bulk of Independents lean. I never trust Independents because there's nothing to indicate anything about their convictions.
In any case, the notion that Republicans might be more likely to agree with Q is no doubt due to the fact that Q says what they believe anyway. Dan likes to believe that Republican citizens are brainwashed according to the dictates of political or pundit "leaders", whereas Dems like Dan are thoughtful, discerning and independent thinkers persuaded only by their totally accurate assessments of all things. *gack!* Dan's opinion is worthless lacking as it does any substantive evidence to support a damned thing.
More later....
"If you're trying to suggest (and I know you are) that BLM is somehow posing a degree of danger, then you're just a lying son of a bitch so shut the hell up."
What an interesting, appropriate, grace filled, response. In reality, I was pointing out that BLM is founded on at least one lie, possibly more. While I believe that BLM poses dangers in various ways, I think that the two black gentleman who's podcast and social media information I've spoon fed you at least twice do an excellent job of outlining the problems with BLM. Obviously, I am making a distinction between the "organization" and the preposition that black lives do matter and are important. The fact that you won't even entertain the possibility that BLM could be anything more than a bunch of saintly, gentle folks, with only altruism at heart, (without this vitriol laden screed and an attack on my deceased mother) definitely suggests something. When I couple this with your refusal to acknowledge, let alone engage with, two reasonable, intelligent black Christians, I definitely sense a degree of willful blindness.
"You want to attack a justice organization..."
When you start out with lies, it's not a good omen. I have no desire to "attack" anyone (I leave that to you), I don't think that looking at the words, and deeds of an organization and those that support that organization, is an "attack". In reality, I'd suggest that searching for the truth about any group is both valuable and helpful. I (and the folks I've pointed you to would take issue with your use of the term "justice" to describe BLM, but you aren't interested in anything counter to your preconceptions).
"...while giving passes to racists, rapists, sexual predators, and those who'd corrupt our nation and the notion of a free Republic."
Please point out the specific places I have given passes for racism, rape, sexual predation, or corruption? I will need the link as well as the exact quote. If you are trying to suggest that I have supported the actions of imperfect and sinful people who have been accused of those things, then I dare say that we all have done so. Your implication that the mere presence of an accusation renders everything else someone does as corrupted, is an incredibly unrealistic standard and just one more example of you applying one standard to others, but not to yourself.
A"nd I get that you've blinded yourself and your heart is too hard to see the Truth, so I pray for your eyes to be opened."
Then your prayers have been answered. (Although, I'm not sure you actually agree that God intervenes directly in the lives or events on earth, which renders your prayers rather pointless and impotent) I'm always seeking the truth, and I always seek to see the reality of people and groups, regardless of their politics.
In all seriousness, you've made quite the claims in your comment, and I expect to see proof or an apology/retraction.
"Democrat 33% Republican 27% Independent 40%"
The link I supplied had Biden supporters higher than Evangelicals as well, I wonder what happens when the reality of the data, disagrees with Dan's prior commitment?
We both know this isn't about anything but an opportunity to have one more rhetorical cudgel to bludgeon everyone who doesn't jump on his train of hatred, or that he can broad brush people with regardless of their actual beliefs.
As my article pointed out also, "support" is a continuum, and the level of "support" goes down with the more information people have.
What's interesting, is that the most public face of Q are social media posts which are all about stopping sex trafficking of children in a very general sense. They don't get into the conspiracy details, just promote the stopping of sex trafficking of minors. I know plenty of people who (as a general proposition) oppose sex trafficking of minors, and who might indicate their support for that general "proposition" by liking a FB post or otherwise showing "support". I suspect that much of this "support" Dan alludes to is that sort of shallow, general, "support" for something that shouldn't be controversial.
It's almost like Dan is saying that people are wrong to like a social post by a group that wants to oppose sex trafficking of minors, or something.
Another harm caused by these "fringe" groups you dismiss as if they were nothing: They are impeding the actual adults who work to help abused children. Because that is the nature of stupidly false conspiracy theories when they get mainstream support.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics/qanon-child-welfare/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_content=2020-11-28T18%3A30%3A37&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fbCNN&fbclid=IwAR3tgJbSSup1mzl0ER1I5vMBybmdPaBC8QTfT4-3S7jFpEtImvs5kJD-N5w
Craig... "Regarding Dan's Forbes poll, it wasn't actually Forbes that did the poll, it was the Daily Kos. But here's how their less than 1400 people were divided:
Democrat 33% Republican 27% Independent 40%"
I can find no support for this. Is this another Trump/Qanon-style stupidly false rumor? The link I cited did not say this. Nor did the link to the Daily Kos poll.
Did you just make this number up or is there some data behind it?
I read the whole article, and saw no evidence of any actual harm being done. It was much more about the possibility of potential harm that could happen.
Don't misunderstand my point here. My pointing out the problem with your blind acceptance of a CNN piece, isn't support for Q. It's merely pointing out the lengths that you appear willing to go to, so that you can tar people with an absurd conspiracy theory.
What I did find interesting in the piece, and the sort of thing that tends to get ignored by those one the "We must continue/increase the lock downs" crowd, is the possibility/likelihood that Covid is masking/increasing the amount of abuse (much like the mental health costs of Covid), will continue to be collateral damage that goes under reported.
"I can find no support for this. Is this another Trump/Qanon-style stupidly false rumor? The link I cited did not say this. Nor did the link to the Daily Kos poll."
Thanks for proving you don't even read your own links, much less the links produced for you by others.
Post a Comment