Terrorism Experts Say QAnon Conspiracy Theory a Threat to National Security(vice.com)
vice.com
Terrorism Experts Say QAnon Conspiracy Theory a Threat to National Security
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/889kgp/terrorism-experts-say-qanon-conspiracy-theory-a-threat-to-national-security
30 comments
So they're admitting that QAnon is to be taken seriously? That it's not fake?
It's origin can be fake, but there are real people who believe in the fakery.
I find this line from the article quite interesting: "It has no central leader and encourages its followers to do their own research."
Well, we do know that someone or a group is making those Q posts. That is factual, indisputable. Digital signatures on anonymous messaging boards work. So I'm confused as to why the article never mentions the Q posts.
They even misrepresent what it is: "QAnon can be confusing for the outside observer." Actually, it's quite clear: a person or group who identified as "Q" started posting that a bunch of stuff is going on behind the scenes.
Whether or not Q is truthful or not is not the problem. The Vice article doesn't represent the origin of the QAnon "movement" correctly.
Well, we do know that someone or a group is making those Q posts. That is factual, indisputable. Digital signatures on anonymous messaging boards work. So I'm confused as to why the article never mentions the Q posts.
They even misrepresent what it is: "QAnon can be confusing for the outside observer." Actually, it's quite clear: a person or group who identified as "Q" started posting that a bunch of stuff is going on behind the scenes.
Whether or not Q is truthful or not is not the problem. The Vice article doesn't represent the origin of the QAnon "movement" correctly.
Is there a good summary somewhere of the chain of assertion that gives Q-followers a reason to believe that whomever it is that says they're Q now, is the same person/group that said they were Q a year or more ago?
I've looked into Q a fair bit and tried to tease out what's correct and incorrect, because it's actually quite fascinating. Of course I remain highly skeptical that what Q is talking about will happen, but here's what I've put together.
Q validates their posts with what's called a trip code. Urban Dictionary actually explains it pretty well:
"A trip code is a code used in anonymous threads like 4chan to determine whether or not the anonymous poster is authentic or not. It assigns a code to the end of your name. When you add the pound (#) symbol to the end of your name followed by a word, like a password that only you know, it scrambles the word into a code. That way it's undetectable and can be used over and over again." [1]
As long as you keep your password secret, trip codes are quite reliable.
Now, Q has apparently changed tripcodes over time. A good resource for looking at Q posts is qmap.pub. I just did some searching to find out how Q does these changes.
https://qmap.pub/read/1311
https://qmap.pub/read/1312
This is just one example, but the poster claiming to be Q (1) says a change is coming and (2) announces the change. It's clearly imperfect, but the old trip code isn't used again. I would have to look at all other trip code changes to be certain. However, there's no reason to automatically assume other trip code changes would be different than this.
Here's a big weakness: Q didn't use trip codes at first. Ultimately, you have to believe that the Q today is the same as the one from 2017. However, the chain of trip codes does demonstrate at least some continuity for the last two years or so.
Sources:
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trip%20Code
Q validates their posts with what's called a trip code. Urban Dictionary actually explains it pretty well:
"A trip code is a code used in anonymous threads like 4chan to determine whether or not the anonymous poster is authentic or not. It assigns a code to the end of your name. When you add the pound (#) symbol to the end of your name followed by a word, like a password that only you know, it scrambles the word into a code. That way it's undetectable and can be used over and over again." [1]
As long as you keep your password secret, trip codes are quite reliable.
Now, Q has apparently changed tripcodes over time. A good resource for looking at Q posts is qmap.pub. I just did some searching to find out how Q does these changes.
https://qmap.pub/read/1311
https://qmap.pub/read/1312
This is just one example, but the poster claiming to be Q (1) says a change is coming and (2) announces the change. It's clearly imperfect, but the old trip code isn't used again. I would have to look at all other trip code changes to be certain. However, there's no reason to automatically assume other trip code changes would be different than this.
Here's a big weakness: Q didn't use trip codes at first. Ultimately, you have to believe that the Q today is the same as the one from 2017. However, the chain of trip codes does demonstrate at least some continuity for the last two years or so.
Sources:
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trip%20Code
Trip idea can be broken in a few days with a proper GPU. The original q-anon trip was cracked within a month. It’s a giant larp
Acknowledging a cult’s dangers doesn’t legitimise its existence or tenets.
I agree in part. I feel acknowledging a cult's dangers legitimizes its existence but not its tenets.
You have a very unconventional meaning for the term "fake"
Just because something is to be taken seriously doesn't mean it's "real". For example, the US took the cult of Jim Jones seriously (and this was shown to be warranted when Congressman Ryan was assassinated). However, that's orthogonal to the accuracy of the cult's beliefs-- taking Jim Jones seriously doesn't actually mean he was a prophet or Messiah. What made him dangerous was that his adherents believed he was.
Just like how the Comet Pizza conspiracy theory should be taken seriously even though it's kinda silly- it becomes dangerous when people start shooting up restaurants looking for non-existent children in a non-existent dungeon
Just like how the Comet Pizza conspiracy theory should be taken seriously even though it's kinda silly- it becomes dangerous when people start shooting up restaurants looking for non-existent children in a non-existent dungeon
But that's the weird thing about calling QAnon a conspiracy theory: we label something as a "conspiracy theory" when it's presumed to be based on information which is...hmm, untrue? Hard to pin it down.
Jim Jones was not a conspiracy theory. It was a real belief system. By admitting the existence of the beliefs, we don't automatically recognize correctness. So why should QAnon be flat out labeled as a conspiracy theory when its existence as real as Jim Jones?
Jim Jones was not a conspiracy theory. It was a real belief system. By admitting the existence of the beliefs, we don't automatically recognize correctness. So why should QAnon be flat out labeled as a conspiracy theory when its existence as real as Jim Jones?
I know I shouldn't be this curt here, but a child could dismantle that argument with a puff from one nostril.
Addressing you and woodandsteel: What I mean by "fake" is that QAnon is substantial enough to devote resources to it. Subversive techniques are highly effective, and QAnon is apparently making an impact on the world, whether we think its tenets are complete crock or well-founded.
No disagreement there. Likewise, a "Caution: Falling Rocks" sign typically indicates that rocks have been making an impact, more so than that rocks have uncovered scandalous state secrets :)
QAnon is as much of a treat as Emmanuel Goldstein was to the Ministry of Truth.
>Qanon is going mainstream and that’s bad.
Is it? My completely uninformed impression was that it was dying.
Is it? My completely uninformed impression was that it was dying.
Nope. If anything, many people are talking about it in person, since sites like Twitter are restricting how much people can post about it.
"Identical shares (3%) of conservative Republicans and moderate and liberal Republicans have heard or read a lot about the conspiracy theories."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/30/qanons-cons...
How many of those 3% who have heard or read a lot about it actually believe it is hard to estimate.
I have family that are fervent believers so this hits close to home.
If you've heard or read a lot about it, it's either because you believe it or are personally invested in it (I presume most likely due to having relationships with people who believe it).
Take a rough slice and say 10% of those people who have heard or read a lot about it are believers and the other 90% are their friends and family.
Sooo... 55 million registered republicans; Guesstimate 50% of those are considered "conservative" republicans by the terminology of the Pew poll; 3% of those have heard a lot about Q; 10% of those are believers. 55 * 0.5 * 0.03 * 0.1 and that's ~800,000 Q followers.
Is 800,000 mainstream for a conspiracy theory? I wonder how many people believe the earth is flat.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/30/qanons-cons...
How many of those 3% who have heard or read a lot about it actually believe it is hard to estimate.
I have family that are fervent believers so this hits close to home.
If you've heard or read a lot about it, it's either because you believe it or are personally invested in it (I presume most likely due to having relationships with people who believe it).
Take a rough slice and say 10% of those people who have heard or read a lot about it are believers and the other 90% are their friends and family.
Sooo... 55 million registered republicans; Guesstimate 50% of those are considered "conservative" republicans by the terminology of the Pew poll; 3% of those have heard a lot about Q; 10% of those are believers. 55 * 0.5 * 0.03 * 0.1 and that's ~800,000 Q followers.
Is 800,000 mainstream for a conspiracy theory? I wonder how many people believe the earth is flat.
The last thing you mentioned, if you made a list of it's uses, here for example... what would you find?
Consider the possibility that it's not designed to convince you earth is flat.
Consider the possibility that it's not designed to convince you earth is flat.
Apparently pedophiles are the new communist moles, who were the new witches. Who did the witches fill in for, apostates?
Are you denying that there have been tons of high-profile pedophiles, child-trafficiking rings, etc? Did you miss the whole Epstein thing? It's reasonable to assume that that's just the tip of the iceberg; not that there's any reason to believe the Q people are going to get to the bottom of any of this. Regardless, it's a reasonable open area of investigation that impacts many people's lives.
Do you deny that there was Communist infiltration into government decades ago? McCarthyism may have caused a lot of collateral damage but it's clear to anyone that there was plenty of espionage work happening on behalf of Russia at that time. Hell, if you believe the election tampering meme, it's still happening to this day.
Both of those things are/were real. We may never know the whole story, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to look into it.
Witches don't need to be brought into this, though of course it seems clear to me that Salem was successful since there aren't any witches now ;)
Do you deny that there was Communist infiltration into government decades ago? McCarthyism may have caused a lot of collateral damage but it's clear to anyone that there was plenty of espionage work happening on behalf of Russia at that time. Hell, if you believe the election tampering meme, it's still happening to this day.
Both of those things are/were real. We may never know the whole story, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to look into it.
Witches don't need to be brought into this, though of course it seems clear to me that Salem was successful since there aren't any witches now ;)
> "Are you denying ..."
No.
It is hard to understand what you are arguing. Are you criticizing the comparison because it is not apt, or because it is?
In the mid-20th century, there really were communist moles in governments; just not as many as were claimed, and mostly not the ones accused. The craze to root them out mainly swept up, and blighted the lives and careers, of innocents.
There really were individuals who would supply poisons, but the overwhelming majority of those hung for witchcraft were women who owned property the Church wanted.
The people who take advantage of Q will not be rooting out actual offenders, and any of those who are in positions of authority can use Q to divert attention from themselves.
I suspect, but cannot support, that obsession with witchcraft arose only after, and largely because, the supply of heretics dried up.
No.
It is hard to understand what you are arguing. Are you criticizing the comparison because it is not apt, or because it is?
In the mid-20th century, there really were communist moles in governments; just not as many as were claimed, and mostly not the ones accused. The craze to root them out mainly swept up, and blighted the lives and careers, of innocents.
There really were individuals who would supply poisons, but the overwhelming majority of those hung for witchcraft were women who owned property the Church wanted.
The people who take advantage of Q will not be rooting out actual offenders, and any of those who are in positions of authority can use Q to divert attention from themselves.
I suspect, but cannot support, that obsession with witchcraft arose only after, and largely because, the supply of heretics dried up.
> It is hard to understand what you are arguing.
Well, you appear to be drawing a false equivalence between pedos and communists (real, proven) and witches (not real, unless you believe in magic).
Well, you appear to be drawing a false equivalence between pedos and communists (real, proven) and witches (not real, unless you believe in magic).
There is a very real equivalence in people promoting hysteria about pedos, communists, and witches, completely independently of their expressed targets' existence. Are there actual pederasts and human traffickers? Yes. Do you imagine they are the individuals the Q enthusiasts accuse? I doubt.
> Are there actual pederasts and human traffickers? Yes. Do you imagine they are the individuals the Q enthusiasts accuse?
Who do they accuse whom you think has a really solid excuse? Some demonstration of a false or plausibly-false accusation would be nice.
Who do they accuse whom you think has a really solid excuse? Some demonstration of a false or plausibly-false accusation would be nice.
As always in such cases, they will accuse anyone they don't like. Being disliked by demogogues is not probable cause.
Qanon is silly. It's basically "Plan Trusting", i.e. the idea is that Trump et. al. have a grandiose plan that will not be revealed that will clean all the bad people out and put good people in; it's wishful thinking to an extreme, and it's backed up with Nostradamus-style non-falsifiable predictions that get rationalized after the fact.
It's harmless. It's a distraction. It's not a threat to anyone - if anything it takes people who could potentially be activists and redirects them into inaction.
Antifa is a much bigger, more real, more visible threat to national security. Where's the Vice article calling them out?
It's harmless. It's a distraction. It's not a threat to anyone - if anything it takes people who could potentially be activists and redirects them into inaction.
Antifa is a much bigger, more real, more visible threat to national security. Where's the Vice article calling them out?