It strikes me reading these self-described "independent thinkers" on these Q threads that their "independent-thinking" manifests itself most often as a superior attitude and an elite condescension toward all other participants whom they consider stupid. These self-annoying "thinking deniers" of anything serious in the Q threads show their contempt for the other, in their opinion, less "enlightened" participants by slinging insults and slurs and other generalized ad hominem comments about their childish lack of discernment and maturity in being not as "adult" or as "keenly discerning" or as "smart" as themselves, these few "brilliant" critics, who are blessed to recognize Q for the charlaton he or she must be, according to their sole determination.
It is therefore up to them to enlighten these poor ignorant, stupid clods, who can not determine for themselves the TRUTH about Q and, thereby, save them from themselves! This is the hubris of the socialist mindset. . . and it reveals the for who they must be. Statists.
Such ad hominem attacks are the hallmarks of a debater who really has no cogent facts in his arsenal with which to attack the actual subject.
That may be because they really do not, or cannot, grasp the subject matter.
They demonstrate they have not really read the Q posts in their entirety, being satisfied to throw ignorant critical brickbats, with little evidence using ill considered, non-representative, analogies which are absurdly off-the-mark, not realizing how ill-informed such analogies show them to be on the subject they are criticizing.
‘manifests itself most often as a superior attitude and an elite condescension toward all other participants whom they consider stupid. These self-annoying “thinking deniers” of anything serious in the Q threads show their contempt for the other, in their opinion, less “enlightened” participants by slinging insults and slurs and other generalized ad hominem comments about their childish lack of discernment and maturity in being not as “adult” or as “keenly discerning” or as “smart” as themselves, these few “brilliant” critics, who are blessed to recognize Q for the charlaton he or she must be, according to their sole determination.
snip
Such ad hominem attacks are the hallmarks of a debater who really has no cogent facts in his arsenal with which to attack the actual subject.
That may be because they really do not, or cannot, grasp the subject matter.’
Thank you SO much for this post. You have described my experiences on Q threads with uncanny accuracy. From the very beginning I’ve received alternately a high and mighty condescension—with the supposed experts telling me I have no grasp of the subject matter—alternating with insults, slurs, lies, smears and never-ending ad hominem. The pure, unmitigated nastiness has been off the charts. [There are two Q-believers whose posts I refuse to even read any more. Their name-calling and OTT hostility is out of control. Sadly we don’t have an Ignore option, so I’ve had to start skipping down to the bottom of the post before I read it. If it’s from one of the two confirmed haters, I skip the post in its entirety and move on. ]
What I’ve done to earn all this condescension and verbal abuse is post facts. The facts I initially posted about Q were so utterly unknown by his most perfervid supporters that I got alternately corrected or lambasted for posting them. The denial of these facts continued in some quarters for weeks on end, despite itsf being painfully easy to fact-check the claims and find out they’re all true. [Exactly two Q-believers did fact-check them and admit I was right. For the rest, either ignoring the evidence or smearing me were the preferred reactions.]
I come onto these threads to have rational, logical, fact-based discussions. I don’t name-call or insult. I attempt to engage. Is the Q phenomenon such that the only people you all are capable of having civil discussions with fellow Q-believers? If that’s the case, why haven’t you lobbied as a group for Caucus status? If it’s not the case, then you need to direct your comments to your fellow believers. They are the purveyors of insults and ad hominem, not I.
[Btw, no one has explained what crime I committed by mentioning the Alex Jones/Bannon theory re Q. The person who made the strongest case that Q is AJ is a huge fan of both Jones and Q. He thought the idea of Jones assuming an incognito persona was a stroke of genius as well as a massive help to POTUS. So I took what is considered Q-supportive/positive speculation from a different site and posted it here, and all I get is, “Troll, troll, TROLL!” On the surface, at least, it makes it look as if consistency is not the essence of Q-belief.]