QAnon (2 Viewers)

[Dragon]

This organisation and its reach is seriously scary. When the head of the New York Police Department's second-largest police union openly shows his support of this "organisation" then something is seriously wrong!

The head of the New York Police Department's second-largest police union gave a television interview Friday afternoon while sitting in front of a mug emblazoned with QAnon imagery and slogans.

The mug behind Mullins featured the word "QANON" and the hashtag #WWG1WGA, which stands for "where we go one, we go all," a popular slogan among QAnon supporters. At the center of the mug was a large letter Q, which refers to a supposed government insider who, according to QAnon supporters, posts cryptic clues on the Internet about the "deep state."


More than a year ago, the FBI reportedly assessed that QAnon was a dangerous movement that was likely to inspire its most extreme members to commit violent acts of domestic terrorism.

In recent weeks, QAnon supporters have been posting videos of themselves reciting an oath and repeating the "where we go one, we go all" catchphrase that is seen on the mug. They say they are preparing "digital soldiers" for an apocalyptic reckoning, when thousands of "deep state" pedophiles will be arrested and prosecuted at military courts at Guantanamo Bay.

https://us.cnn.com/2020/07/17/us/head-nypd-union-qanon-mug/index.html

 

[gjones]

Gee.. another one

Gee…another what?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Again 10 of millions of followers. And that is all you have. There are probably more, just not many. Same as the BLM protest. I understand what he is saying, but I also see the games that some play when they attempt to manipulate the narrative.

We can debate the merits of Q vs BLM (not that I want to have that debate), however it is clear that calling those who follow Q as radicalized on their way to violent acts is just an over statement. They may have crazy ideas in their thoughts, but where is the actual impact other than the farce of January 6.

I can list quite a few articles about BLM protest that turned violent. Yet this board says that the harm done by BLM protest are over sensationalized, yet Q followers, with virtually no crime outside of a handful of idiots on January, are the radicalized ones on their way to violent acts?

Some of the population despises those who follow Q so much, they have little consistency in their thought process. In my opinion, this creates advocacy problems when attempting to sell or justify their agenda.

So the answer is you don't understand the difference or you do understand but don't care?

 

[gjones]

So the answer is you don't understand the difference or you do understand but don't care?

I understand what he said. I also understand what he was implying. I don’t care ether way.

Now please explain how one can hold the point of view that only a small % of BLM protest were non violent, yet the Q followers are radicalized and don’t intend initially on committing violence. Just point to any validation.

I see 5 or 6 post grilling me over someone else’s statement, yet dodging the questions in which the answers disqualify the basis of his argument. Many posters are accusing Paul of the same thing in another thread. Heck it might be the same people. (Mind blown)



Word

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I understand what he said. I also understand what he was implying. I don’t care ether way.

Now please explain how one can hold the point of view that only a small % of BLM protest were non violent, yet the Q followers are radicalized and don’t intend initially on committing violence. Just point to any validation.

I see 5 or 6 post grilling me over someone else’s statement, yet dodging the questions in which the answers disqualify the basis of his argument. Many posters are accusing Paul of the same thing in another thread. Heck it might be the same people. (Mind blown)



Word

So you understood his point and then willfully misrepresented it. Good to know that you're up front about your intentions to not engage in good faith.

 

[gjones]

So you understood his point and then willfully misrepresented it. Good to know that you're up front about your intentions to not engage in good faith.

This is a game that some of you seem to play. Please point to my misrepresentation.

If his statement was not implying that people who follow Q at first don’t intend to commit a violent act, but eventually do commit a violent act. Then yes I misrepresented what he was implying. But this is exactly what he was selling……and he got called out on it.

And then we get into a page of people covering for him and not answering the initial question that was asked.

I may need to go back and read the TOS again. I must be doing this wrong.

 

[gjones]

If he is into Q stuff then he is somewhere along the path of radicalization.

Most of the Q people who become willing to commit violence don't start out willing.

Most popular post of the night.

Please point to the people outside of Jan 6, that became willing to commit violence based on the influence of Q.

Knowing Q has millions of followers on a path to radicalization this should be an easy find.

 

[gjones]

Ok here are the almost dozen crimes committed with POSSIBLE Q links. Some more possible than others.

QAnon: a timeline of violence linked to the conspiracy theory

In the past two years, kidnappings, car chases and a murder appear to have been fueled by belief in a fictional narrative

www.theguardian.com

 

[gjones]

As a comparison

https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf

 

[SystemShock]

If he is into Q stuff then he is somewhere along the path of radicalization.

Most of the Q people who become willing to commit violence don't start out willing.

But does radicalization necessarily lead to violence?
It surely can be a path to violence, but it is not necessarily so. However, radicalization can lead to the support of /condoning of/ turning a blind eye to very many bad things, including violence, the complete underminding of our democratic process, etc...

I'll argue, anyone who believes in whatever QAnon sells, they are already radicalized; or another word for it, indoctrinated. Indoctrination may not be a synonym of radicalization, but they are like love and marriage: you can't have one without the other.

 

[gjones]

But does radicalization necessarily lead to violence?
It surely can be a path to violence, but it is not necessarily so. However, radicalization can lead to the support of /condoning of/ turning a blind eye to very many bad things, including violence.

I'll argue, anyone who believes in whatever QAnon sells, they are already radicalized; or another word for it, indoctrinated. Indoctrination may not be a synonym of radicalization, but they are like love and marriage: you can't have one without the other.

Uh oh. What do we have here?

 

[MT15]

As a comparison

https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf

You didn’t read this document, did you? It doesn’t say what you want it to say to support your point:

“Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence. In some cases where demonstrations did turn violent, there are reports of agents provocateurs — or infiltrators — instigating the violence. During a demonstration on 27 May in Minneapolis, for example, a man with an umbrella — dubbed the ‘umbrella man’ by the media and later identified as a member of the Hells Angels linked to the Aryan Cowboys, a white supremacist prison and street gang — was seen smashing store windows (Forbes, 30 May 2020; KSTP, 28 July 2020). It was one of the first reports of destructive activity that day, and it “created an atmosphere of hostility and tension” that helped spark an outbreak of looting following initially peaceful protests, according to police investigators, who believe the man “wanted to sow discord and racial unrest” (New York Times, 28 July 2020). In another example on 29 May in Detroit, a number of non-residents reportedly traveled to the city to engage in violent behavior during a demonstration, leading to multiple arrests (MLive, 2 June 2020).”

I also find it odd that you want to exclude the Jan 6 insurrection from the evidence for Q violence. Why would you exclude that day?

 

[MT15]

my posts said that Q trades in promises of extreme violence toward lots of people. It does. It uses extremely violent imagery to recruit people.

So it was sort of disingenuous to turn it into “Q people have to have actually committed violence in order to count“. No?

 

[samiam5211]

Most popular post of the night.

Please point to the people outside of Jan 6, that became willing to commit violence based on the influence of Q.

Knowing Q has millions of followers on a path to radicalization this should be an easy find.

The fact that you seem to equate Q anon to things like BLM tells me that you either don't know what Qanon is about, or you believe it yourself.

I haven't said any of the things you seem to accuse me of saying about Qanon.

Qanon isn't based in anything real. Anyone who believes in it should be treated like a person who is mentally ill.

I never said that there were millions of people committing violence in the name of Q. I just said that people who believe in Q are being taken advantage of and believe in something that isn't real. Some of them will become violent.

 

[gjones]

The fact that you seem to equate Q anon to things like BLM tells me that you either don't know what Qanon is about, or you believe it yourself.

I haven't said any of the things you seem to accuse me of saying about Qanon.

Qanon isn't based in anything real. Anyone who believes in it should be treated like a person who is mentally ill.

I never said that there were millions of people committing violence in the name of Q. I just said that people who believe in Q are being taken advantage of and believe in something that isn't real. Some of them will become violent.

I said there are 10s of millions of followers. You said they are all radicalized on their way to violence. I’m just looking for the examples. I

 

[samiam5211]

I said there are 10s of millions of followers. You said they are all radicalized on their way to violence. I’m just looking for the examples. I

I hope there aren't truly 10s of millions of Qanon followers.

Do you know what Qanon people believe? have you looked into it?

 

[gjones]

You didn’t read this document, did you? It doesn’t say what you want it to say to support your point:

“Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence. In some cases where demonstrations did turn violent, there are reports of agents provocateurs — or infiltrators — instigating the violence. During a demonstration on 27 May in Minneapolis, for example, a man with an umbrella — dubbed the ‘umbrella man’ by the media and later identified as a member of the Hells Angels linked to the Aryan Cowboys, a white supremacist prison and street gang — was seen smashing store windows (Forbes, 30 May 2020; KSTP, 28 July 2020). It was one of the first reports of destructive activity that day, and it “created an atmosphere of hostility and tension” that helped spark an outbreak of looting following initially peaceful protests, according to police investigators, who believe the man “wanted to sow discord and racial unrest” (New York Times, 28 July 2020). In another example on 29 May in Detroit, a number of non-residents reportedly traveled to the city to engage in violent behavior during a demonstration, leading to multiple arrests (MLive, 2 June 2020).”

I also find it odd that you want to exclude the Jan 6 insurrection from the evidence for Q violence. Why would you exclude that day?

I don’t think you read the whole document.

I am not excluding Jan 6. Those are idiots in the fringe. I’m just looking for the impact of radicalization by the other followers that are so dangerous.

 

[gjones]

And I’m not equating the beliefs of BLM bs Q.

I am talking about how 1 group of protesters has a pretty good amount of violence attributed to them (BLM), the other one has 1 actual incident and a couple possibly linked. Yet many are up in arms about the second groups radicalization.

I am moving on from this trigger topic. Obviously the people responding are throwing shade with no substance.

 

[MT15]

I don’t think you read the whole document.

I am not excluding Jan 6. Those are idiots in the fringe. I’m just looking for the impact of radicalization by the other followers that are so dangerous.

I did read the whole document. Show me where it lays out all the violence committed by BLM members. You can’t because it didn’t happen. A couple of the more pertinent paragraphs:

“Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).”