"So, I apologise for thinking that you ate babies."

The Independent reports:

A former QAnon supporter has apologised to Anderson Cooper for previously believing that the CNN anchor ate babies.

Jitarth Jadeja, who believed in the baseless conspiracy movement until June 2019, spoke with Cooper for an upcoming CNN report investigating the QAnon movement titled “Inside the QAnon Conspiracy”.


In a preview released ahead of the special report, Cooper began by acknowledging that he, as well as other high-profile individuals, have been the target of some of QAnon’s most “outlandish” conspiracies.

“It’s also something of a personal project, as the QAnon fringe has previously focused on me and a bunch of other reporters, as well as many other public figures, as somehow being responsible for some of their more outlandish, should we say, and bizarre conspiracies,” the journalist said ahead of the interview, adding that he was called a “paedophile” and linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein through “phony flight logs”.


During the interview, Cooper asked Jadeja whether he, at the time, believed some of the movement’s claims, which include that high-level Democrats and celebrities “worship Satan” and “drink the blood of children”.

Read more
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
In response to the question, Jadeja revealed that he thought Cooper was guilty of the claims.

“Anderson, I thought you did that,” he responded. “And I would like to apologise for that right now. So, I apologise for thinking that you ate babies. But, yeah, 100 per cent.”

your@email.com
Please enter your email addressPlease enter a valid email addressPlease enter a valid email address

The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted
Read our full mailing list consent terms here

Jadeja’s response appeared to surprise Cooper, who responded: “You actually believed that I was drinking the blood of children?” to which Jadeja replied: “Yes, I did.”

According to Jadeja, who stopped believing in the unhinged theories after watching YouTube videos debunking the movement’s claims, he believed Cooper was involved because Q, the conspiracy movement’s leader, “specifically mentioned” the CNN anchor.

“And he mentioned you very early on,” Jadeja continued, adding that the anonymous conspiracy theorist also referenced Cooper’s family and that more recent QAnon theories have speculated that the journalist is a “robot”.

During the interview, Jadeja, who lives in Sydney, Australia, also revealed that his belief in the baseless theories spouted by Q also extended much further, telling Cooper that he believed “that QAnon was part of military intelligence, which is what he says,” and that “the people behind him were actually a group of fifth-dimensional, intradimensional, extraterrestrial bipedal bird aliens called blue aliens”.

“I was so far down in this conspiracy black hole that I was essentially picking and choosing whatever narrative that I wanted to believe in,” he said.

QAnon, which started as a fringe internet conspiracy, entered the mainstream under the Trump presidency, with followers convinced that the former president was waging a secret war against high-profile paedophiles running a Satanic sex ring, among other baseless beliefs.


The group was dealt one of its biggest blows on Inauguration Day, which many had believed for months would be a day of reckoning and would see Donald Trump arrest enemies of the country and remain president.

CNN’s QAnon special airs Saturday at 9 pm ET.

Christian Broughton
Please support truly independent journalism
Every penny you give will fund public-interest reporting

Contribute
MORE ABOUT
ANDERSON COOPER
QANON
CNN
CONSPIRACIES

I never heard of Jitarth Jadeja nor Anderson Cooper

was this big?

Ben Reilly wrote:The Independent reports:

A former QAnon supporter has apologised to Anderson Cooper for previously believing that the CNN anchor ate babies.

Jitarth Jadeja, who believed in the baseless conspiracy movement until June 2019, spoke with Cooper for an upcoming CNN report investigating the QAnon movement titled “Inside the QAnon Conspiracy”.


In a preview released ahead of the special report, Cooper began by acknowledging that he, as well as other high-profile individuals, have been the target of some of QAnon’s most “outlandish” conspiracies.

“It’s also something of a personal project, as the QAnon fringe has previously focused on me and a bunch of other reporters, as well as many other public figures, as somehow being responsible for some of their more outlandish, should we say, and bizarre conspiracies,” the journalist said ahead of the interview, adding that he was called a “paedophile” and linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein through “phony flight logs”.


During the interview, Cooper asked Jadeja whether he, at the time, believed some of the movement’s claims, which include that high-level Democrats and celebrities “worship Satan” and “drink the blood of children”.

Read more
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
Moving on from QAnon? Experts say these tips could help
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon spreads rumours Trump will be president again on March 4
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
QAnon followers angry as conspiracy’s ‘storm’ fails to materialise
In response to the question, Jadeja revealed that he thought Cooper was guilty of the claims.

“Anderson, I thought you did that,” he responded. “And I would like to apologise for that right now. So, I apologise for thinking that you ate babies. But, yeah, 100 per cent.”

your@email.com
Please enter your email addressPlease enter a valid email addressPlease enter a valid email address

The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted
Read our full mailing list consent terms here

Jadeja’s response appeared to surprise Cooper, who responded: “You actually believed that I was drinking the blood of children?” to which Jadeja replied: “Yes, I did.”

According to Jadeja, who stopped believing in the unhinged theories after watching YouTube videos debunking the movement’s claims, he believed Cooper was involved because Q, the conspiracy movement’s leader, “specifically mentioned” the CNN anchor.

“And he mentioned you very early on,” Jadeja continued, adding that the anonymous conspiracy theorist also referenced Cooper’s family and that more recent QAnon theories have speculated that the journalist is a “robot”.

During the interview, Jadeja, who lives in Sydney, Australia, also revealed that his belief in the baseless theories spouted by Q also extended much further, telling Cooper that he believed “that QAnon was part of military intelligence, which is what he says,” and that “the people behind him were actually a group of fifth-dimensional, intradimensional, extraterrestrial bipedal bird aliens called blue aliens”.

“I was so far down in this conspiracy black hole that I was essentially picking and choosing whatever narrative that I wanted to believe in,” he said.

QAnon, which started as a fringe internet conspiracy, entered the mainstream under the Trump presidency, with followers convinced that the former president was waging a secret war against high-profile paedophiles running a Satanic sex ring, among other baseless beliefs.


The group was dealt one of its biggest blows on Inauguration Day, which many had believed for months would be a day of reckoning and would see Donald Trump arrest enemies of the country and remain president.

CNN’s QAnon special airs Saturday at 9 pm ET.

Christian Broughton
Please support truly independent journalism
Every penny you give will fund public-interest reporting

Contribute
MORE ABOUT
ANDERSON COOPER
QANON
CNN
CONSPIRACIES

These folks approached cult like beliefs.

If there was some poisoned Kool aid they might have drank it if asked.

Pretty sure they thought John Robert's ate babies too.

A girl I used to date had this on her time-line. She believes it and had a few comments below it where her friends believed it, and were even predicting what the date would be when Trump returns.

Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Ben Reilly wrote:Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue.

I don't have to look too far to find dick heads on both sides of the political aisle.

That QAnon has infiltrated the Republican Party is testament to how infectious the cult contagion can be.

I don't know whether some wise, but devious man designed it that way...or whether the spread simply occupied an open, empty space.  It certainly seemed easy.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue.  

I don't have to look too far to find dick heads on both sides of the political aisle.  

no one has ever looked as much of a dickhead as the trumpsters

even vegans, arguably the most insane of the left, still never raided the Capitol in an attempt to execute politicians
and people do eat meat so there insane complaint is still based in reality ... as opposed to eating babies literally dangerously delusional

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue.  

I don't have to look too far to find dick heads on both sides of the political aisle.  

no one has ever looked as much of a dickhead as the trumpsters

even vegans, arguably the most insane of the left, still never raided the Capitol in an attempt to execute politicians
and people do eat meat so there insane complaint is still based in reality ... as opposed to eating babies  literally dangerously delusional

Vegans are just mildly irritating and not insane. I know people that don't eat meat and people that supported Trump who are excellent human beings.

But I also know and know of people on both sides of the aisle who are dickheads. My point is that being on one side doesn't necessarily make you a good person and it's problematic to think as much.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue.  

I don't have to look too far to find dick heads on both sides of the political aisle.  

Please save your observations for another thread, as here they're just whataboutism.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue.  

I don't have to look too far to find dick heads on both sides of the political aisle.  

Please save your observations for another thread, as here they're just whataboutism.

Ah. Your opinions are facts and mine are whataboutisms.

I didn't stereotype a particular group of people and call them all childish. You did, and that's a fact.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ah. Your opinions are facts and mine are whataboutisms.

I didn't stereotype a particular group of people and call them all childish. You did, and that's a fact.  

No, a whataboutism actually changes the subject.  It says, in effect, I don't want to talk about the wrong at issue in this instance, now what about when you do it?  It doesn't refute the wrong.

It simply puts the interlocutor on the defensive.  That discontinuity is what makes it a logical fallacy.

Thanks for showing up and proving my point.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ah. Your opinions are facts and mine are whataboutisms.

I didn't stereotype a particular group of people and call them all childish. You did, and that's a fact.  

No, a whataboutism actually changes the subject.  It says, in effect, I don't want to talk about the wrong at issue in this instance, now what about when you do it?  It doesn't refute the wrong.

It simply puts the interlocutor on the defensive.  That discontinuity is what makes it a logical fallacy.

And it really wasn't whataboutism. I never said there weren't childish Republicans, just that it was incorrect to believe they had cornered the market on it.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ah. Your opinions are facts and mine are whataboutisms.

I didn't stereotype a particular group of people and call them all childish. You did, and that's a fact.  

No, a whataboutism actually changes the subject.  It says, in effect, I don't want to talk about the wrong at issue in this instance, now what about when you do it?  It doesn't refute the wrong.

It simply puts the interlocutor on the defensive.  That discontinuity is what makes it a logical fallacy.

And it really wasn't whataboutism. I never said there weren't childish Republicans, just that it was incorrect to believe they had cornered the market on it.  

Where you went wrong was to assume I was saying Republicans had cornered the market on childishness, something I did not say. I suspect what I did say put you on the defensive, for some reason.

I'm getting pretty tired of all the whataboutism we see here, because it really is a debate killer. It takes debates off on loopty-loo tangents and the original topic never gets properly discussed.

I mean, here we have a basic story:

* There's a popular conspiracy theory that American liberals, among other things, kill and eat babies.

* A lot of people believe that only Donald Trump could stop them.

* Now there are not only people willing to take up arms and storm the Capitol on the basis of this theory, but there are also people who have the power to pass laws who believe in this theory.

I think it's a pretty amazing development, worthy of a bit more discussion than just, "Well, Democrats aren't perfect either!"

“Whataboutism” is simply a sly way of changing the subject although it appears you are still discussing the same subject.

It’s either accidental or purposefully done. Either way, it’s boring and I won’t engage in it.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm getting pretty tired of all the whataboutism we see here, because it really is a debate killer. It takes debates off on loopty-loo tangents and the original topic never gets properly discussed.

I mean, here we have a basic story:

* There's a popular conspiracy theory that American liberals, among other things, kill and eat babies.

* A lot of people believe that only Donald Trump could stop them.

* Now there are not only people willing to take up arms and storm the Capitol on the basis of this theory, but there are also people who have the power to pass laws who believe in this theory.

I think it's a pretty amazing development, worthy of a bit more discussion than just, "Well, Democrats aren't perfect either!"

that's a fair enough comment, ben but there have been crazy smears and allegations made from both sides of the political coin is the only thing that was mentioned

there has been rumours of satanic rituals and all

also who/what exactly is QAnon. I've seen that name mentioned so many times and on twitter.

Is it an organisation as such? or just a group of people, or maybe only one person

does anyone know

also, off track but the catman thread is locked. just wanted to say sorry for being such a preachy shit last night. i have no idea on the abuse youa are getting. you do you. that's good enough for me

Well, I'm not aware of anybody who's accused Trump and his team of such horrific things. I think some of these people don't realize the outrageousness of their claims, actually. But if anybody has, I'll stand corrected -- but it's not crossed my radar.

In a nutshell and to the best of my knowlege, QAnon is a phenomenon that started on the message boards of 8Chan, a pretty infamous hotbed of pretty much everything negative about human beings, in particular racism and misogeny. (But they also pretty much invented the internet meme as we now know it, so ...)

Someone calling himself Q made all sorts of cryptic predictions about what was to come next in Trump's battle against a liberal "deep state" of baby-eating pedophiles that included everyone from Hillary Clinton to news presenters on CNN. The predictions routinely didn't come true, which sent the QAnon believers scrambling to re-interpret them.

A lot of different groups are glomming onto QAnon -- gun nuts, white supremacists, misogynistic "incels" and others. And as I said earlier, some of them are now representatives in Congress. I suspect some of them were involved in the Capitol attack as well.

I think there's probably a few thousand hard-core QAnon people and thousands more who think they're on to something. It's hard to know, just like it's hard to know exactly how many people are heavily involved in BLM.

Okay, so that's not really nutshelling it! But there's a lot more to it than I've already said, so I'd recommend googling it.

As far as what you said about catman, I didn't think you were being a preachy shit at all, just a good friend

After November's election she spent days on TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube becoming indoctrinated into the world of QAnon. By inauguration day, she was convinced that if then President-elect Joe Biden took office the United States would literally turn into a communist country. She was terrified that she would have to go into hiding with her daughter.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/03/tech/qanon-mom-former-believer/index.html

Ben Reilly wrote:

In a nutshell and to the best of my knowlege, QAnon is a phenomenon that started on the message boards of 8Chan, a pretty infamous hotbed of pretty much everything negative about human beings, in particular racism and misogeny. (But they also pretty much invented the internet meme as we now know it, so ...)

Someone calling himself Q made all sorts of cryptic predictions about what was to come next in Trump's battle against a liberal "deep state" of baby-eating pedophiles that included everyone from Hillary Clinton to news presenters on CNN. The predictions routinely didn't come true, which sent the QAnon believers scrambling to re-interpret them.


As far as what you said about catman, I didn't think you were being a preachy shit at all, just a good friend

that's what i mean,,,, ''a phenomenon''......''.someone calling himself''

so basically no one knows anything about who specifically it is.

also i swear i read before that 8chan was a spoof/parody type site that deliberately made up mad stories (although i dont think any of them were about eating babies)

so now i'm even more confused and really wishing i never asked

also i have to admit that if i were getting abusive message after abusive message until i finally exploded and made a nasty comment and then someone messaged me with ''now now, you're better than that'' it would infuriate me and my immediate mental reaction would be ''right ok, you need to fuck off quickly before i start getting rude'' lololol

also i've realised it wasn't last night at all. it was lunch time today and it seems like at least a full day ago.

i'm getting really disorientated and losing all sense of time. i need help

nite

Yep, nobody knows who Q is -- could be more than one person.

I really just got angry because I know that he used eddie's real name to try to make us afraid of him -- as though either of us would be afraid of that little sad-sack loser. And I remember how years ago, when he thought edds was still with her ex, he found out that her ex drove a black taxi and would send shit like "on (x date) black taxi goes BOOM!!!" I mean he truly is evil.

Lastly, get a grip woman

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm getting pretty tired of all the whataboutism we see here, because it really is a debate killer. It takes debates off on loopty-loo tangents and the original topic never gets properly discussed.

I mean, here we have a basic story:

* There's a popular conspiracy theory that American liberals, among other things, kill and eat babies.

* A lot of people believe that only Donald Trump could stop them.

* Now there are not only people willing to take up arms and storm the Capitol on the basis of this theory, but there are also people who have the power to pass laws who believe in this theory.

I think it's a pretty amazing development, worthy of a bit more discussion than just, "Well, Democrats aren't perfect either!"

I agreed with you're basic premise. Even posted a meme and description of a girl I know that fits the description of the people you describe.

Then you used the antics of these crazy people to make a broad generality, (the right wing in America is childish) and I pointed out that neither "wing" can claim the moral high ground when you hold it responsible for the actions of its most extreme actors.

Ben wrote:The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

This comment throws millions under the bus for the actions of a small number of people.

Maddog wrote:These folks approached cult like beliefs.

If there was some poisoned Kool aid they might have drank it if asked.

Pretty sure they thought John Robert's ate babies too

.

This comment address the people that this thread is about and doesn't try to drag in others

See the difference?

gelico wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm getting pretty tired of all the whataboutism we see here, because it really is a debate killer. It takes debates off on loopty-loo tangents and the original topic never gets properly discussed.

I mean, here we have a basic story:

* There's a popular conspiracy theory that American liberals, among other things, kill and eat babies.

* A lot of people believe that only Donald Trump could stop them.

* Now there are not only people willing to take up arms and storm the Capitol on the basis of this theory, but there are also people who have the power to pass laws who believe in this theory.

I think it's a pretty amazing development, worthy of a bit more discussion than just, "Well, Democrats aren't perfect either!"

that's a fair enough comment, ben but there have been crazy smears and allegations made from both sides of the political coin is the only thing that was mentioned

there has been rumours of satanic rituals and all

Nonsense.  RW have to lie; when they get caught, they come up with "all politicians do it" or "both sides do it", etc., etc.  It's a lie to cover up a lie.

A simple look at the model for causation (x >> y) shows that the important ingredient of a falsehood is the causative element. What is the guy trying to hide?  The causative element of a lie is an act to deceive...which means that the liar has, or is doing something that s/he doesn't want known.

One of the great dodges is whataboutism, which doesn't refute the argument, but says what about you?--in effect, changing the subject.  Writ large, all liars prepare themselves with the assertion that all people (or whatever) lie, so that when their lie is caught out they can say all people lie!  Call it a hip-pocket excuse, because it's always in a liar's hip-pocket.

The motivation to deceive is real emphasis.  All people lie, is an attempt to change the subject, in effect saying: what about all the other people who lie??  But, the original emphasis is wtf is causing you to lie?  What is causing you to deceive?  Stick to the original subject, and you won't be fooled by the whataboutism.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


that's a fair enough comment, ben but there have been crazy smears and allegations made from both sides of the political coin is the only thing that was mentioned

there has been rumours of satanic rituals and all

Nonsense.  RW have to lie; when they get caught, they come up with "all politicians do it" or "both sides do it", etc., etc.  It's a lie to cover up a lie.

A simple look at the model for causation (x >> y) shows that the important ingredient of a falsehood is the causative element.  What is the guy trying to hide?  The causative element of a lie is an act to deceive...which means that the liar has, or is doing something that s/he doesn't want known.

One of the great dodges is whataboutism, which doesn't refute the argument, but says what about you?--in effect, changing the subject.  Writ large, all liars prepare themselves with the assertion that all people (or whatever) lie, so that when their lie is caught out they can say all people lie!  Call it a hip-pocket excuse, because it's always in a liar's hip-pocket.

The motivation to deceive is real emphasis.  All people lie, is an attempt to change the subject, in effect saying: what about all the other people who lie??  But, the original emphasis is wtf is causing you to lie?  What is causing you to deceive?  Stick to the original subject, and you won't be fooled by the whataboutism.

I may have to defer to your vast experience in lying, in regards to this topic.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  RW have to lie; when they get caught, they come up with "all politicians do it" or "both sides do it", etc., etc.  It's a lie to cover up a lie.

A simple look at the model for causation (x >> y) shows that the important ingredient of a falsehood is the causative element.  What is the guy trying to hide?  The causative element of a lie is an act to deceive...which means that the liar has, or is doing something that s/he doesn't want known.

One of the great dodges is whataboutism, which doesn't refute the argument, but says what about you?--in effect, changing the subject.  Writ large, all liars prepare themselves with the assertion that all people (or whatever) lie, so that when their lie is caught out they can say all people lie!  Call it a hip-pocket excuse, because it's always in a liar's hip-pocket.

The motivation to deceive is real emphasis.  All people lie, is an attempt to change the subject, in effect saying: what about all the other people who lie??  But, the original emphasis is wtf is causing you to lie?  What is causing you to deceive?  Stick to the original subject, and you won't be fooled by the whataboutism.

I may have to defer to your vast experience in lying, in regards to this topic.

Haha...it's more sociable than beating up your wife.  

My emphasis is on how to avoid linguistic ploys to dodge truth or logic.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I may have to defer to your vast experience in lying, in regards to this topic.

Haha...it's more sociable than beating up your wife.  

My emphasis is on how to avoid linguistic ploys to dodge truth or logic.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the head.

The things we have been talking about are logical fallacies, not truth and veracity. Whataboutism is the technique or practice of responding to an assertion or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. It tries to avoid truth, but is not an issue of veracity itself.

Dictionary.com wrote:Whataboutism is considered a form of the logical fallacy called tu quoque, Latin for “you also”—more like “And so are you!” in contemporary speech. The idea, here, is that a person charged with some offense tries to discredit the accuser by charging them with a similar one or bringing up a different issue altogether—none of which is relevant to the original accusation. It’s basically like blowing a raspberry at someone and saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/whataboutisms/

It's illogical in that it doesn't plug into the subject. It ducks the subject, and says...what about you? It's very much like asking how cold is it outside?…and answering, I'm 38-years old, thank you.

It changes the subject.

Original Quill wrote:The things we have been talking about are logical fallacies, not truth and veracity.  Whataboutism is the technique or practice of responding to an assertion or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.  It tries to avoid truth, but is not an issue of veracity itself.

Dictionary.com wrote:Whataboutism is considered a form of the logical fallacy called tu quoque, Latin for “you also”—more like “And so are you!” in contemporary speech. The idea, here, is that a person charged with some offense tries to discredit the accuser by charging them with a similar one or bringing up a different issue altogether—none of which is relevant to the original accusation. It’s basically like blowing a raspberry at someone and saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/whataboutisms/

It's illogical in that it doesn't plug into the subject.  It ducks the subject, and says...what about you?  It's very much like asking how cold is it outside?…and answering, I'm 38-years old, thank you.

It changes the subject.

Ben basically said it was cold in right-wing counties. I said it's cold in the adjacent blue county too.

I didn't change the subject.

But you basically abandoned the central topic, didn't you, and went off on the whataboutism?  You facetiously challenged: "Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue".

Original Quill wrote:But you basically abandoned the central topic, didn't you, and went off on the whataboutism?  You facetiously challenged: "Yeah, those liberals are a paragon of virtue".

What was the central topic?

Wasn't it that there are some crazy fuckers out there following the Q conspiracy site?

Ben Reilly wrote:Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Wood, who famously signed a verification statement for one of his post-election lawsuits "under plenty of perjury," posed a couple of bewildering questions to the chief justice on Twitter last night: "(1) You are recorded discussing Justice Scalia's successor before date of his sudden death. How did you know Scalia was going to die? (2) Are you a member of any club or cabal requiring minor children as initiation fee?"

By way of explanation, Wood added: "My information from reliable source is that Roberts arranged an illegal adoption of two young children from Wales through Jeffrey Epstein. I think we can all agree that Epstein knows pedophilia."


In case that did not convince anyone, Wood suggested that his charges must be true because otherwise Roberts would sue him for defamation: "I have publicly accused him & Justice Breyer of being profane anti-Trumpers. I have linked Roberts to illegal adoption, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophilia & prior knowledge of Scalia's death. Did Roberts skip class on defamation?"


https://reason.com/2020/12/31/pro-trump-lawyer-tries-to-implicate-chief-justice-john-roberts-in-murder-and-pedophilia/


Is John Roberts a liberal?

It's no doubt that these people are "out there".

It's also no doubt that not only liberals are in their crosshairs.

Absolute bonkers.

Original Quill wrote:Absolute bonkers.

Yes they are.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Gels, it absolutely is a big deal. There are a number of people in Congress now who believe this bullshit.

By the way, the "baby-eating" slur against liberals in America isn't that new; Alex Jones was talking about liberals/globalists/Jews eating babies ages ago.

The right wing in America has a very childish mindset. Anybody who doesn't agree with them must be the worst of the worst, in their heads.

Wood, who famously signed a verification statement for one of his post-election lawsuits "under plenty of perjury," posed a couple of bewildering questions to the chief justice on Twitter last night: "(1) You are recorded discussing Justice Scalia's successor before date of his sudden death. How did you know Scalia was going to die? (2) Are you a member of any club or cabal requiring minor children as initiation fee?"

By way of explanation, Wood added: "My information from reliable source is that Roberts arranged an illegal adoption of two young children from Wales through Jeffrey Epstein. I think we can all agree that Epstein knows pedophilia."


In case that did not convince anyone, Wood suggested that his charges must be true because otherwise Roberts would sue him for defamation: "I have publicly accused him & Justice Breyer of being profane anti-Trumpers. I have linked Roberts to illegal adoption, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophilia & prior knowledge of Scalia's death. Did Roberts skip class on defamation?"


https://reason.com/2020/12/31/pro-trump-lawyer-tries-to-implicate-chief-justice-john-roberts-in-murder-and-pedophilia/


Is John Roberts a liberal?

It's no doubt that these people are "out there".

It's also no doubt that not only liberals are in their crosshairs.  

You just pulled more whataboutism; do you even realize you're doing it?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Wood, who famously signed a verification statement for one of his post-election lawsuits "under plenty of perjury," posed a couple of bewildering questions to the chief justice on Twitter last night: "(1) You are recorded discussing Justice Scalia's successor before date of his sudden death. How did you know Scalia was going to die? (2) Are you a member of any club or cabal requiring minor children as initiation fee?"

By way of explanation, Wood added: "My information from reliable source is that Roberts arranged an illegal adoption of two young children from Wales through Jeffrey Epstein. I think we can all agree that Epstein knows pedophilia."


In case that did not convince anyone, Wood suggested that his charges must be true because otherwise Roberts would sue him for defamation: "I have publicly accused him & Justice Breyer of being profane anti-Trumpers. I have linked Roberts to illegal adoption, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophilia & prior knowledge of Scalia's death. Did Roberts skip class on defamation?"


https://reason.com/2020/12/31/pro-trump-lawyer-tries-to-implicate-chief-justice-john-roberts-in-murder-and-pedophilia/


Is John Roberts a liberal?

It's no doubt that these people are "out there".

It's also no doubt that not only liberals are in their crosshairs.  

You just pulled more whataboutism; do you even realize you're doing it?

No, I'm calling you out for making a false claim.

These fuckwits are an enemy of people in both parties in spite of your broad generalizations.

Isn't this thread about crazy fuckers obsessed with a child trafficking ring being run in the highest level of government by both parties?

Commonly referred to as “cherry-picking,” this fallacy occurs when someone uses an argument that contains some element of truth while selectively omitting important details in order to deceive or misrepresent the facts to support a false conclusion. The stronger the omitted evidence, the more grievous the fallacy. You also commit this "cherry-picking fallacy" when you search for a pattern or evidence that fits your beliefs as opposed to adjusting your beliefs to fit the evidence.


Pointing out this fallacy is not whataboutism, no matter how many times you say it.

These crazies are all conservatives, and the fact that they target some people that any sane person would also consider conservative doesn't mean they're liberals.

Ben Reilly wrote:These crazies are all conservatives, and the fact that they target some people that any sane person would also consider conservative doesn't mean they're liberals.

No it doesn't.

But if you're dead set on dividing people into two factions (which I'm not), you can find some crazy people in each faction that will do harm to others in and out of their groups.

Liberal store owners, even black liberal store owners were not safe from BLM rioters.

Maddog wrote:Liberal store owners, even black liberal store owners were not safe from BLM rioters.

There were no BLM rioters.  There were decent citizens who demonstrated to publicize the cause of BLM.  Parasitic criminals took advantage of the disquiet to loot stores, but they had nothing to do with the BLM message.

This highlights the fact that the insurrectionists of 1/6 were not the same as demonstrators.  Demonstrators only want to politically publicize a cause of conscience, whereas the insurrectionists were bent on a decidedly illegal activity: civil war and the replacement of democracy with tyranny, in contravention to the Constitution and its guarantee of a democratic form of government.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Liberal store owners, even black liberal store owners were not safe from BLM rioters.

There were no BLM rioters.  There were decent citizens who demonstrated to publicize the cause of BLM.  Parasitic criminals took advantage of the disquiet to loot stores, but they had nothing to do with the BLM message.

This highlights the fact that the insurrectionists of 1/6 were not the same as demonstrators.  Demonstrators only want to politically publicize a cause of conscience, whereas the insurrectionists were bent on a decidedly illegal activity: civil war and the replacement of democracy with tyranny, in contravention to the Constitution and its guarantee of a democratic form of government.

OK.

Parasites. Use whatever fucking term helps you sleep better.

I think its important for Both sides not to fall in to the trap of blaming a whole movement on the actions of a few Criminals and thugs.

I have talked to many a trump supporter over the past 5 years and the majority are good decent people who have been convinced of a alternate reality where they are told that they are under siege by forces beyond there ability to control.this has been hammered in to them on a daily basis. these people are not idiots or stupid they are casualty's in a war being fought in cyberspace.s

Russian propaganda,and other state actors along with Qanon and RW media outlets has in many ways brainwashed them for want of a better word .

The nature of war has changed it is cheaper and more effective to use social media as the weapon ,rather than troops and armaments.and make a country tear it's self apart
Joseph Goebbels said "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it"

And i fear that's what is going on
Facebook and twitter and other social media platforms have been weaponized and they did little to nothing about it,in fact the very act of them trying feeds the beast.and the cycle continues

Unfortunately putting that genie back in the bottle is the only chance we have

how that could be done is a question i have no answer for i wish i did

As martin Luther king said

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that".

And the one quote i keep coming back to is from a hero on mine

“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
Neil Gaiman, Good Omens

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:These crazies are all conservatives, and the fact that they target some people that any sane person would also consider conservative doesn't mean they're liberals.

No it doesn't.

But if you're dead set on dividing people into two factions (which I'm not), you can find some crazy people in each faction that will do harm to others in and out of their groups.  

Liberal store owners, even black liberal store owners were not safe from BLM rioters.  

Why is a group out to make police treat people of all colors the same considered liberal in the first place?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No it doesn't.

But if you're dead set on dividing people into two factions (which I'm not), you can find some crazy people in each faction that will do harm to others in and out of their groups.  

Liberal store owners, even black liberal store owners were not safe from BLM rioters.  

Why is a group out to make police treat people of all colors the same considered liberal in the first place?

That's how the game is played now. The Dems have BLM and the Reps have the NRA.

Folks that don't abide by those parameters and all of the others will be chastised.

The NRA has declared bankruptcy and New York’s attorney general sued the organization over claims that top executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts for associates and other questionable expenditures.

So they are on there way out i guess that might be a good thing and enable some common sense gun laws to be brought in and although i suspect they will survive in some way or another

Korban wrote:The NRA has declared bankruptcy and New York’s attorney general sued the organization over claims that top executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts for associates and other questionable expenditures.

So they are on there way out i guess  that might be a good thing and enable some common sense gun laws to be brought in and although i suspect they will survive in some way or another

They aren't going anywhere. Especially once Biden starts trying to get more gun legislation passed. The donations will roll in. I may even rejoin for the first time in 20 years.

I don't find the NRA that useful in 2nd Amendment rights but more of a lobbyist for gun manufacturers, but they are the biggest boys in town in terms of influence.

From what i have read The NRA where a good organization till wayne lapierre took over then it took a hard turn to the right and blocked every measure to introduce common sense measures .and now it seems he has fleeced Its members out of millions

Korban wrote:The NRA has declared bankruptcy and New York’s attorney general sued the organization over claims that top executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts for associates and other questionable expenditures.

So they are on there way out i guess  that might be a good thing and enable some common sense gun laws to be brought in and although i suspect they will survive in some way or another

The NRA is nearly finished.  The organization has long since abandoned any real connection with true sportsmen, and as that is more and more apparent the members are questioning what it is they get from the NRA.  Hence, the bankruptcy as the organization has no purpose.

But, the real truth is that the NRA has long been a money launderer for the Russian government.  This came to light during the prosecution of Mariia Butina, a Russian national who greased the wheels for the connection between Russia and the RW of the US.  As Wiki tells it:

Wiki wrote:Beginning in 2011, she worked as an assistant for Aleksandr Torshin, a former member of the Federation Council, a member of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, and a deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia. In this role, she worked to infiltrate conservative groups in the US, including the National Rifle Association, as part of an effort to promote Russian interests in the 2016 United States presidential election. The Senate Intelligence Committee later concluded that she attempted to persuade the Trump campaign to establish a secret communications back channel with Russia.

In July 2018, while residing in Washington, D.C., Butina was arrested by the FBI and charged with acting as an agent of the Russian Federation "without prior notification to the Attorney General.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina

Shutting off the funds from Russia to the NRA was pivotal not only to the bankruptcy, but—as we will soon find out—shutting off the vast sums of money, heretofore fed into Republican campaigns up and down the ladder.

Korban wrote:From what i have read The NRA where a good organization till wayne lapierre took over then it took a hard turn to the right and blocked every measure to introduce common sense measures .and now it seems he has fleeced Its members out of millions  

The members gave money mostly to lobby politicians. They got what they paid for.