8 ms·

What has Qanon ever said that can be remotely considered hateful? Who determines what is hateful?

by skindoe 6y ago

yladiz 6y ago
> Who determines what is hateful? In this case, Twitter.
- skindoe 6y ago
  Sounds Orwellian
  - msbarnett 6y ago
    Sounds like a private enterprise deciding what they want on their property, to me.
    - andrenth 6y ago
      So like, say, a cake shop?
      - msbarnett 6y ago
        Sure, exactly like that. People who believe there’s a vast conspiracy of celebrities to drain “adrenochrome” from children to gain eternal life or whatever aren’t a protected class, after all.
        andrenth 6y ago
        You’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?
        msbarnett 6y ago
        Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
        andrenth 6y ago
        That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
        catalogia 6y ago
        For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        andrenth 6y ago
        But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
        krapp 6y ago
        >But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
  - flutterdude420 6y ago
    Does it? There are other privately owned platforms you can use to accuse Hilary Clinton of pedophaelic blood rituals and satanic mind control. When Ingsoc comes in to ban reporters from asking unflattering questions at presidential news conferences then maybe we can talk.
  - exogeny 6y ago
    Good thing many alternatives exist!
    - skindoe 6y ago
      What if Google and Twitter deside that those "alternatives" are hateful for disagreeing politically and stop linking them on their platforms making it extremely difficult/impossible to find them?
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        What does Google have to do with this discussion about Twitter?
        thephyber 6y ago
        I think your parent is talking about Twitter, Google and the other internet platforms and infrastructure.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Then people can type in domain names directly. This isn't a hard problem to solve.
    - bluedispatcher 6y ago
      This is a disingenuous argument. When all mainstream platforms decide that your opinion is not welcome, your only real alternative becomes either silence or small echo chambers where you're more likely to enter into radical feedback loops. This is not healthy for our societies. Historically, public spaces have been used to confront ideas. Free speech isn't a luxury, it's a necessity that ensures our societies don't devolve into radicalized micro bubbles that are more likely to resort to violence. The issue that we're facing is that the public space is being replaced by the virtual private space, which doesn't have such guarantees. We're already seeing the effect of such divisiveness already, and it's only going to get worse. So should we just accept that free speech is dead? I don't think that's the right direction.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It's not because there are alternatives. People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.
    - pix64 6y ago
      If you're interested in hateful content stormfront is the next door down
thephyber 6y ago
QAnon is not a person; it's a moral panic. It's a massive group of people LARPing about the most serious crimes anyone can be accused of and it focuses on new people nearly every day. No trials. Weak evidence. No way for the accused to face their accuser. It's as bad as the worst of "cancel culture".
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  It's more like a salem witch trial, started by little girls who don't really know what they're doing and who are trying to get a bunch of people murdered because, nothing else to do in 1700's Massachusetts.
djur 6y ago
That Chrissy Teigen was on the Epstein flight logs and involved in sexual depravity, despite being a minor at that time; that pictures Tom Hanks takes of random roadside detritus are secret signals to a worldwide network of Satanic pedophiles; that there is video of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin sexually abusing a child and cutting off her face; that Michelle Obama was secretly assigned male at birth and should be called "Michael"; and so on. Also, just look in the replies of any regular person who attacks QAnon claims on Twitter and you will see responses accusing them of being a pedophile, a murderer, a Satanist, and claiming that they, their families, etc. will be imprisoned or executed.
- throwaway829 6y ago
  I've been following "Q" out of curiosity since when it started posting. Not sure if it's a pied piper op, as Wikileaks said, or something else. However I've not seen any of the things you listed as examples of hateful content. You can search all the posts yourself. "Chrissy Teigen" and "Hanks" show no results. Clinton is mentioned but none of the "cutting off her face" stuff. Where did you get these ideas? https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword
  - hnzix 6y ago
    I've seen this Q garbage in friends' Facebook feeds, where it is being amplified by wellness gurus of all things. The posts are word salad fever dreams claiming certain celebs are literally satanic and practicing witchcraft and ritually murdering children. A depressing number of people swallow it. We haven't evolved enough since Salem.
  - djur 6y ago
    "QAnon" is the community of people who subscribe to the idea that "Q" is leading them to some hidden truth. I got these ideas by seeing thousands of people identifying as QAnon followers express every one of the ideas I listed above. You just have to look at any one of those famous people's tweets to see QAnon replies baselessly accusing them of horrible things. The codeword used for the supposed Clinton video in QAnon is "frazzledrip". The nature of "Q", or at least the current person publishing under that guise (likely Jim and/or Ron Watkins), is that they rarely make any kind of concrete claims or predictions, but they've certainly made allusions to Moloch, Satan, cannibalism, etc. when referring to political figures. It's the responsibility of "bakers" in the community to take "Q"'s "crumbs" and come to conclusions. Certainly these conclusions have been widespread in the community for years and have not been spoken against by "Q".

What has Qanon ever said that can be remotely considered hateful? Who determines what is hateful?

yladiz 6y ago

> Who determines what is hateful? In this case, Twitter.

skindoe 6y ago
Sounds Orwellian
- msbarnett 6y ago
  Sounds like a private enterprise deciding what they want on their property, to me.
  - andrenth 6y ago
    So like, say, a cake shop?
    - msbarnett 6y ago
      Sure, exactly like that. People who believe there’s a vast conspiracy of celebrities to drain “adrenochrome” from children to gain eternal life or whatever aren’t a protected class, after all.
      - andrenth 6y ago
        You’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?
        msbarnett 6y ago
        Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
        andrenth 6y ago
        That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
        catalogia 6y ago
        For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        andrenth 6y ago
        But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
        krapp 6y ago
        >But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
- flutterdude420 6y ago
  Does it? There are other privately owned platforms you can use to accuse Hilary Clinton of pedophaelic blood rituals and satanic mind control. When Ingsoc comes in to ban reporters from asking unflattering questions at presidential news conferences then maybe we can talk.
- exogeny 6y ago
  Good thing many alternatives exist!
  - skindoe 6y ago
    What if Google and Twitter deside that those "alternatives" are hateful for disagreeing politically and stop linking them on their platforms making it extremely difficult/impossible to find them?
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      What does Google have to do with this discussion about Twitter?
      - thephyber 6y ago
        I think your parent is talking about Twitter, Google and the other internet platforms and infrastructure.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Then people can type in domain names directly. This isn't a hard problem to solve.
  - bluedispatcher 6y ago
    This is a disingenuous argument. When all mainstream platforms decide that your opinion is not welcome, your only real alternative becomes either silence or small echo chambers where you're more likely to enter into radical feedback loops. This is not healthy for our societies. Historically, public spaces have been used to confront ideas. Free speech isn't a luxury, it's a necessity that ensures our societies don't devolve into radicalized micro bubbles that are more likely to resort to violence. The issue that we're facing is that the public space is being replaced by the virtual private space, which doesn't have such guarantees. We're already seeing the effect of such divisiveness already, and it's only going to get worse. So should we just accept that free speech is dead? I don't think that's the right direction.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's not because there are alternatives. People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.
  - pix64 6y ago
    If you're interested in hateful content stormfront is the next door down

thephyber 6y ago

QAnon is not a person; it's a moral panic. It's a massive group of people LARPing about the most serious crimes anyone can be accused of and it focuses on new people nearly every day. No trials. Weak evidence. No way for the accused to face their accuser. It's as bad as the worst of "cancel culture".

gremlinsinc 6y ago
It's more like a salem witch trial, started by little girls who don't really know what they're doing and who are trying to get a bunch of people murdered because, nothing else to do in 1700's Massachusetts.

djur 6y ago

That Chrissy Teigen was on the Epstein flight logs and involved in sexual depravity, despite being a minor at that time; that pictures Tom Hanks takes of random roadside detritus are secret signals to a worldwide network of Satanic pedophiles; that there is video of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin sexually abusing a child and cutting off her face; that Michelle Obama was secretly assigned male at birth and should be called "Michael"; and so on. Also, just look in the replies of any regular person who attacks QAnon claims on Twitter and you will see responses accusing them of being a pedophile, a murderer, a Satanist, and claiming that they, their families, etc. will be imprisoned or executed.

throwaway829 6y ago
I've been following "Q" out of curiosity since when it started posting. Not sure if it's a pied piper op, as Wikileaks said, or something else. However I've not seen any of the things you listed as examples of hateful content. You can search all the posts yourself. "Chrissy Teigen" and "Hanks" show no results. Clinton is mentioned but none of the "cutting off her face" stuff. Where did you get these ideas? https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword
- hnzix 6y ago
  I've seen this Q garbage in friends' Facebook feeds, where it is being amplified by wellness gurus of all things. The posts are word salad fever dreams claiming certain celebs are literally satanic and practicing witchcraft and ritually murdering children. A depressing number of people swallow it. We haven't evolved enough since Salem.
- djur 6y ago
  "QAnon" is the community of people who subscribe to the idea that "Q" is leading them to some hidden truth. I got these ideas by seeing thousands of people identifying as QAnon followers express every one of the ideas I listed above. You just have to look at any one of those famous people's tweets to see QAnon replies baselessly accusing them of horrible things. The codeword used for the supposed Clinton video in QAnon is "frazzledrip". The nature of "Q", or at least the current person publishing under that guise (likely Jim and/or Ron Watkins), is that they rarely make any kind of concrete claims or predictions, but they've certainly made allusions to Moloch, Satan, cannibalism, etc. when referring to political figures. It's the responsibility of "bakers" in the community to take "Q"'s "crumbs" and come to conclusions. Certainly these conclusions have been widespread in the community for years and have not been spoken against by "Q".