LogFAQs > #962684301

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So I was wrong about other people knowing about it?

No, you were wrong about them hearing about it from Duckbear. You were also wrong about how many other people know about it, but that's beside the point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I accounted for this. The number of mentions doesn't indicate which mention came first.

I didn't say that it did. I said that it should cause you to wonder if your belief was accurate. Those other mentions also describe empirically verifiable things that Qanon is doing in the real world, as opposed to just name-dropping it, so that should also cause you to question your belief that somebody just saw the name in a Duckbear post and decided to blame random stuff on it for... reasons?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why? Your assertion is that it would be counter productive. What would be my reason to do that?

It's counterproductive if your goal is to be able to claim Internet victory because technically nobody has proven you wrong yet (mostly because you've established a near-unfalsifiable premise that would be far more work than it's worth to dismantle). If your goal is to gain some basic understanding of the world around you, however, it's quite the opposite of counterproductive. Personally, I think that's a much better goal, but who am I to promote self-improvement over Internet points that you give yourself?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 suggested that not trusting reporting about the election is the result of being influenced by a conspiracy theory that qanon is associated with.

Specifically, a certain group of people trust the Qanon conspiracy more than they trust the media because the conspiracy told them what they wanted to believe. That's considerably more nuanced than "Qanon exists, so people don't trust the news anymore."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I haven't been trying to make a point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think QAnon isn't an actual thing and all stories about it are made up by Full Throttle.

That's very unambiguously you claiming that Qanon doesn't exist and was made up by Duckbear. Heck, that's you saying that every story about it is made up by him, which I notice you've quietly walked back now that a bunch of stories not made by him have been brought up. That's a point, dude. You cannot frame it any other way.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You have yet to establish that your other examples are earlier. Thus, this is not a suitable analogy.

Therein, we arrive at the key difference between my analogy and this situation: It's significantly more labour-intensive to find Duckbear's earliest mention of Qanon than it is to find wizards in pre-1965 media. In both cases, literally everybody that isn't you knows you're talking nonsense. Nobody actually needs to verify that belief for themselves or anyone else; the issue is purely a matter of trying to convince you. In the case of my analogy, it would take about 10 seconds to write "LotR came out a decade before she was born," and possibly another 10 to confirm LotR's publication date (Tolkein also did not invent wizards, but that's an easy example that serves the necessary purpose without needing to research the actual history of the concept). Sifting through archived Duckbear topics, however, is very substantial amount of work (he makes a LOT of topics).

The analogy is perfect. The only difference is the amount of effort it would take to prove how stupid your claim is (which subsequently affects how willing people are to exert that effort), which influences nothing about the underlying logic needed to establish the analogy. Nobody cares enough about you to put that much work in, so instead we all just tell you your claim is stupid and give you the resources you need to find that reality for yourself.