That seems okay to me. I was getting tired of just posting memes, and needed something to do.otterfiend wrote:I'm going to just say it while I'm bored enough to reply to the thread:
QAnon is a person we don't know the identity nor qualifications of, due to the lack of any proof. You could make the claim this is to protect himself, but that doesn't change our current knowledge of who they are.otterfiend wrote:You are taking information as FACT from some guy on the internet whose actual identity and qualifications are unknown.
Provided I follow this up with two verifiable things about QAnon, I'm not wrong on this either.otterfiend wrote:We know two verifiable things about this person:
The first known posts originated on October 28th 2017 on the /pol/ board of 4chan, a website that hosts 13 different boards under the Adult NSFW section. This being different from the Misc NSFW section that houses /b/ and /pol/ in that the primary purpose of the Adult section is for adult pornographic material.otterfiend wrote:1. They are posting these claims on a website that has several other sections dedicated to posting various porn.
While I didn't provide the Q Clearance comparison, it is still true that QAnon's name is composed of the letter Q and the shortened word for Anonymous.otterfiend wrote:2. This person goes by an alias based on the letter Q and the abbreviation of the word Anonymous put together.
Neil Cicierega is very well documented across the internet: from his "Animutation" flash animations that can still be found on old sites like AlbinoBlacksheep, to his Potter Puppet pals series with both live action and flash animated videos that you still watch on youtube, to the many musical tracks he put up for download under the names Deporitaz (previously named Trapezzoid until changed for issues with an existing trademark) Lemon Demon and Neil Cicierega which can all be found on a youtube channel that a fan put together and gave control of to the man himself. The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny was one of his songs. In this song, there were mentions of Abraham Lincoln coming back to life and joining a free-for-all battle in which batman and many other popular icons had already started fighting. All of these things are very well known and have a long paper trail. QAnon only showed up late last year, with nothing to verify his background besides what he tells us.otterfiend wrote:We know more information about the origins of Neil Cicierega, the man who is popular online for music that includes a song where Abraham Lincoln rises from the grave to shoot Batman before running away to return with a machete, than we do about this guy claiming that the government is operating in the background to do all these crazy things we are unaware of.
I personally would rather listen to a person I have seen proof of existing for quite some time than a stranger who is entirely undocumented prior to October 2017. Neil has proven to be a rather smart individual over a long time of my peaking into his activities (My original discovery of this man dating back to 2006 when I was a Sophomore in High-school), and while he is open minded he also provides a reasonable amount of doubt to claims that are far-fetched.otterfiend wrote:I don't know about you, but I would rather listen to political opinions from ultimate showdown/potter puppet pals creator than "Letter between P and R McGee" at this point.
Any incredible claims that QAnon posts are building on a long line of conspiracy theorists before him. QAnon did not invent the claim of a Deep State. There are references to claims of a Shadow Government from many years before Trumps time as president. You might argue that we should believe QAnon because he "knew" all these things Trump was going to tweet and say ahead of time, but saying that Trump will use the word "small" in a tweet before it happens is one of these examples that holds very little merit. You could explain that one away with a lucky guess, or more realistically you could explain everything away with the though that QAnon is a man hired by Trump staff to provide reasonable doubt about the people who oppose him for making poor decisions and making crude comments. This latter scenario is just as likely as someone with QClearance posting to 4chan, if not more (I personally believe it is more likely). It would also be rather cheap to find an alt-right supporter on twitter and pay them to spew these claims under an alias in the pursuit of Trump's reelection in 2020. At any rate, just as much evidence to support this exists as there is for the belief that QAnon is being truthful about everything.otterfiend wrote:Nothing QAnon posts is backed up by any decisive evidence. It is only by speculation based on previous claims by the same person or previous theories before he stepped in.
You have successfully turned every person who used to post on your threads with reasonable discussion into people who will only respond with shitposting. Even when Neel was worried about your transition from gamer to 9/11 denier, he contained a lot of what he wanted to say about how crazy he thought everything you were spouting was. His responses were incredibly tame compared to how he talks about conspiracy theorists and similar subject matter when you are on voice with him. There was even a point in the 9/11 thread where he backed off from directly referencing your words as unreliable, and instead talked about the difference between Ted and Tedx talks as well as the scientific evidence that refutes the focal-point of the hollow earth theory that came up. Your response was to call him arrogant for explaining that being on a Tedx video wasn't scholarly in its own merit (Sam Hyde did a Tedx talk where he spoke in various buzzwords to a crowd for almost 20 minutes with a purpose of wasting their time), and you claimed he was being immature by not giving the video a chance (even though it was later revealed that the speaker in the video wasn't actually educated in a relevant field of science, and was in fact a biologist who had claims about the inner-workings of the earth). You ended your post wath the statement "If you don't wish to examine what I put forth feel free to tell me more of what you think of me and how I'm completely wrong in everything, and life." followed by an emote of the awesome-face (an image that reached peak popularity in the very end of 2010 before declining in popularity and losing relevance to most anything). You claimed that Neelpos believed you were always wrong about everything you think (and even implied that Neel had some hidden agenda based upon personal opinions of your character IE the "tell me more of what you think of me" part). This was after Neel had said that flat earth was an unreasonable claim and you agreed with him. In fact, this whole series of arguments stems from a Necro-Post in the 9/11 thread you made which Django replied to you in a classic Django fashion of being a bit over the top but still reasonable in information provided. You posted back in what appeared to be an agitated retort in which you directed the words "fuck you" at him. Your claims later that you were joking may or may not be true, but I'm not the person to judge that. I will say that the most offensive things in Django's post you replied to with these harsh words were the following: A expression of disbelief that you were still believing these things this far after the event, a video titled "I came to laugh at you" which is a clip from an anime about people fighting in robot suits, and use of the expression "dur" in reference to 9/11 truth-ers making hard to swallow claims. None of this warranted as fierce a response as "fuck you" in a forum about mature debate (that doesn't even fall under the category of the ad hominem arguments like Django was presenting. Fuck you is just angry language meant to be insulting or a deterrence in most cases).otterfiend wrote:This wouldn't be any problem for us if you were willing to accept that we do not agree with you, but even in threads where we are calmly discussing the issues and providing reasons why we do not believe the things you believe it still turns into an insult festival after you make a snarky reply that frames us like uneducated idiots.
It is your constitutional right to believe these things and to talk about them.otterfiend wrote:You have the right to believe everything you hear on the internet, and attempt to convince others of these things.
Under that same clause we are also allowed to disagree or even just ignore these beliefs.otterfiend wrote:We have the right to ignore your claims, and tell you why we don't think anything of them.
Under the jurisdiction of a privately owned location or space, our previous rights have less meaning. They only apply to the public sector, and the government does not have any rights outlined in the constitution or elsewhere to prevent the owners of a private location they paid to host from talking about certain things there. The same reason that you can be kicked out of a store for being rude or loud, provides the owners and delegated management that tend to their websites the ability to erase and prevent types of user-made content on those platforms.otterfiend wrote:Staff have the right to remove your threads, and (if it gets to the point where they need to take more action) ban you for being overly aggressive/insulting to members you disagree with.
At the end of the thread is a stock photo depicting that scenario that was stated.otterfiend wrote:I'm going to end this thread with a stock photo of a microphone being dropped.
Although it was not in a detailed account at the time, I did outline the points I needed to make to bring attention to your portrayal of the others who reply. I also purposely chose a stock photo because it was humorous that this person in what looks like a meeting room is dropping a microphone while wearing a suit. Why would they even have a microphone in a normal board meeting? If this was an event where they spoke to a crowd from a stage it would make more sense.otterfiend wrote:It's a microphone being dropped because I've outlined everything I needed to about your attitude towards everyone on the forum, and it's a stock photo just to fill my silly meme quota for the post.
This was just me telling you not to do something. No information was exchanged here.otterfiend wrote:Don't worry about it being too silly, though.
I made sure not to attach my signature to the post and I changed my avatar in a different tab right before I submitted my post.otterfiend wrote:I removed my signature for this post, and changed my avatar to a serious Obama face to convey how frustrating your threads are to a lot of us.
None of the lines in this entire post were incorrect nor unreasonable. Maybe it is time to think about your belief that we are making you into a victim of a personal attack in every thread based on your political stances and affiliations. It could turn out that this goes both ways.