QANON POSTS 4TH QUARTER PROFIT DESPITE FAILED PREDICTIONS

 Washington D.C. — The political landscape is littered with left and right-wing groups ranging from minor lobbying to Conspiracy Theory. None have become more popular than Far-Right Group QAnon. QAnon has posted numerous theories that the government is run by a secret cabal of pedophiles and lizard people. With a surprising cult-like following, QAnon has taken the spotlight from major media groups and cast itself as the front runner in Conservative news.

Along with a massive following on the internet, QAnon has become a power in the financial markets, listed as WAKO on the Nasdaq market. Bolstered by huge donations and sponsors like Reynolds Aluminum Foil and My Pillow, the group has posted a strong 4th quarter,  earning $1.7 billion.

QAnon organizer, site host, and CEO Jason Galenis released a statement on his website WAKO.com, the main site for QAnon users.

“We are pleased with our strong fourth-quarter earnings. We couldn’t have done this without the generous donations of our beloved fans. Rest assured that your money is going to… good use, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way”.

Analysts on Wall Street have been trying to figure out how this is possible after nearly every prediction made by the WAKO group has not come to fruition. Predictions that in January, after the election, a military coup would have resulted in Congress being arrested for treason and Trump remaining President.

Other failed QAnon predictions include Elvis returning from the lizard people planet Kalepto. Hot pockets being microwaved and used as bricks to build the border wall. And, The ink in tattoo’s reacting with chemtrail chemicals to cause cancer.

https://gishgallop.com/qanon-posts-4th-quarter-profit-despite-failed-predictions/

On the Meaning of the Post-Truth Concept and Its Effects

A 2019 research paper, The Upsurge of Irrationality; Post-truth politics for a polarized world, discusses how researchers see the recent descent of political discourse into the mess it is today for tens of millions of Americans. It nicely describes what concepts such as post-truth mean and how they can influence thinking and political and social policy. The following are some quotes from the paper.

Truthiness

.... the term “truthiness”, coined in 2005 by the comedian Stephen Colbert and defined as “the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.” So, truthiness is not necessarily falsehood or propaganda: it can be mere ignorance shaped by emotion, “gut feeling” and overreliance on intuitive thinking. Nevertheless, while truthiness was used primarily for political satire .... post-truth is not a joke any more.

Post-truth

Current social polarization has led to an upsurge of collective irrationality in which formerly underground unwarranted beliefs and radical discourses have become mainstream. .... controverted shared values have been replaced by alternative epistemologies shaped by identity-related empirical misconceptions that are at the core of current cases of “culture war.” This state of affairs has recently been called “post-truth.”

There are several interconnected concepts considered as major forms of collective irrationalism, such as pseudoscience, science denialism, fact  resistance, and alternative facts. Post-truth has emerged as a higher-order concept that describes the current sociological state of affairs in which all these forms of irrationality thrive. This recent term is defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The meaning of post-truth goes beyond being a fool or a liar — “in its purest form, post-truth is when one thinks that the crowd's reaction actually does change the facts about the lie (...) what seem to be new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself.” In this regard, although political lies have always existed, “post-truth relationship to facts occurs only when we are seeking to assert something that is more important to us than truth itself. Thus, post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not.” So, while truthiness locates the responsibility for lying, post-truth is more vague and collectivist in this regard, providing no clear way to define who is responsible, when, and to what extent. Hence, post-truth gives rise to “a world in which politicians can challenge the facts and pay no political price whatsoever.” 

Comments

The paper’s author points out that there is reliable evidence to believe that unfounded beliefs in post-truth rhetoric is not just innocuous folklore. Adverse effects on political campaigns and regressive cultural backlashes have been documented, but the full ramifications are still playing out and thus unknowable. Counterproductive effects of motivated reasoning and false public opinion significantly adversely affect attitudes toward vaccination and climate change. Solid evidence also indicates that conspiracy theories containing post-truth content are also damaging.[1]

The paper’s concluding comments include these: “Post-truth is not an urban legend: it is a harmful collection of alternative epistemologies with a postmodern background that arises from the kind of intergroup struggles that shape the current polarized socio-political landscape. So, post-truth can be interpreted as a result of self-defensive cognition regarding social identity — a process that is fostered by social networks, perceived moral superiority, and partisan media that generate affective [emotion-based] feedback loops, strong perceived threats, and boost against ethical dissonance.” 

Footnote: 

1. The author writes: “The amount of negative social attitudes and outcomes associated with conspiracy theories is overwhelming. For example, they are associated with less pro-social behavior, science denial and misunderstanding, collective narcissism, moral absolutism, partisanship, Machiavellianism and personal willingness to conspire, political cynicism, unhealthy behaviors — such as the use of alternative medicine, anti-vaccination and unsafe sex —, prejudices, political extremism, and reduced intentions to decrease carbon footprint.” (citations removed)

Apparently, belief in false conspiracy theories can be downright dangerous to one’s health and to the health of democracy.

The “Beautiful” Ugliness of Conspiracy Theories

 

I’m wondering/thinking that Conspiracy Theories (CTs) are a lot like Essentially Contested Concepts (ECCs).  Let me explain.  But first a definition.  Here’s one facet of an ECC, according to Wikipedia:

An ECC involves widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., "fairness"), but not on the best realization thereof.^[5] They are "concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users",^[6] and these disputes "cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone".^[7]

(bold emphasis mine)

So, while ECCs are not "objectively provable" (some examples might be biblical or other holy book claims, chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla, or any other subjective type belief), neither are almost all CTs "objectively provable."  For example, how do you prove that Hillary Clinton didn’t run a child porn ring in the back of a pizza parlor (see Pizzagate), or that there are many Democrats who actually eat children, etc?).  In that way, ECCs and CTs share the same predicament.  IOW, you can’t prove their negative (i.e., that they didn’t happen/aren’t true).  And that’s their ugly “beauty”...  you can’t prove them false.  

(Can I get a nee-ner nee-ner neeee-ner here?) 😉

While you may claim to "know" Conspiracy Theory “X” is not true, some others don’t see it that same way.  They honestly believe CT “X” is true, whether or not you try to deny it or try to convince them otherwise.  CT “X” is subjectively “real” (enough) to them. Now what?  Yeah, now what??

CTs are often the spawn of Dark Free Speech (DFS).  All it takes is a willing participant (someone to believe it) for a CT to take off and perpetuate itself, usually through social media.  Yes, it’s all connected.  Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. 

Question: So, how would you go about proving something (some CT) didn’t happen?  What is the magical formula/answer to solving this problem?

Some suggestions:

• Don’t be a fool  Just give up, as there is no magical formula/answer to convincing conspiracy theorists. 
• Try to find some contrary proof (good luck with finding something that’s not there)! 
• Keep pounding away at them with your “proof” until they “snap out of it.” 
• Offer to pay for psychiatric help for them. 😁
• Other (you tell me)!

Thanks for posting and recommending!  I'm baaaaaack!

Who the GOP Serves

An interesting Washington Post opinion piece, Republicans draw a blank on basic governance, lays out the evidence of who the fascist GOP (FGOP) is working for. It's not average American people. Their bosses are the wealthy and special interests with money for campaign contributions. The WaPo writes:

So how would Republicans pay for upgrades that they agree are needed? Well, there they sound pretty much stumped. “I’m open to suggestions about that,” said [FGOP Senator Roger] Wicker. “One way you pay for it is by seeing significant improved economic growth,” suggested Reeves — which, as CNN host Jake Tapper pointed out, “doesn’t really answer the question.”

The closest attempt at an answer came from Blunt, who suggested paying for a scaled-down package with, among other things, a tax on electric vehicles and driverless cars. But that proposal was in some ways more telling: [FGOP Senator Roy] Blunt’s rationale — that those who benefit from improved infrastructure should fund it — could just as easily apply to the companies that benefit from better roads, bridges and the like as it could to the ordinary Americans who drive on them. Rather than at least splitting the difference between the more equitable corporate tax increase and the regressive taxes on drivers, Blunt would lump the entire burden on drivers.

What makes the GOP intransigence particularly silly is that it’s in defense of a corporate tax cut that didn’t work — for most Americans, that is. When Republicans slashed the corporate tax rate as part of a broader tax reduction in 2017, they predicted that a lower rate would boost companies’ return on investment, raise Americans’ wages and help the bill pay for itself. Even before the pandemic, however, none of those promises came to pass. After an initial bonanza, investment fell short of GOP hopes, with most of the money instead used for dividends and stock buybacks. Wages didn’t rise because of the cuts. In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law paid for only one-fifth of its cuts.

But one suspects that Blunt, Wicker and others are protesting this proposed tax increase because of the narrow portion of Americans for whom the 2017 cut did work: the wealthiest. The dividends and stock buybacks benefited rich investors. Meanwhile, according to a new study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “At least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits.” And you know those “savings” aren’t going back into workers’ paychecks.

Remember, whenever the Trump administration launched one of its many ill-fated “infrastructure weeks,” Republicans rarely balked at the price tags — not because those proposals were always funded but because they didn’t make the wealthy and big business pay more of their fair share. So if Biden does sit down with Republicans to talk about paying for an infrastructure package, everyone in the room should be clear on one thing: Republicans don’t really care if this bill — or any other Democratic bill — is paid for. They just don’t want their friends covering the cost. The good news for Democrats is that view is a loser with voters.

It's not the case that the FGOP leadership has no ideas. It's just the case that they cannot admit that they serve the rich and powerful, usually at the expense of the public interest. Given that constraint on their ability to speak freely, they have a hard time coming up with suggestions that serve the public interest without making special interests pay a reasonable portion of the cost.