Read on Twitter
Jesus H. Christ.
Since The Discourse(tm) will apparently never die, here is my damn opinion on the extremely dumb @ParlerTakes "controversy":
There's REAL VALUE in showing people -- especially a large audience like PT has amassed -- *just how bloodthirsty* the right has become.
Since The Discourse(tm) will apparently never die, here is my damn opinion on the extremely dumb @ParlerTakes "controversy":
There's REAL VALUE in showing people -- especially a large audience like PT has amassed -- *just how bloodthirsty* the right has become.
It is, in fact, an essential service. Somehow, a lot of folks STILL don't know how bad it's gotten -- even after a right-wing mob sacked the Capitol in an attempt to end American democracy, while crowd members chanted "hang Mike Pence" and some CREATED A GALLOWS TO DO IT.
Publicizing that is *good*. I 100% support anyone who can put real, accurate information about this issue in front of hundreds of thousands of eyes.
AND: there's a set of best practices for talking abt terrorist chatter & propaganda, developed in a years-long struggle with ISIS.
AND: there's a set of best practices for talking abt terrorist chatter & propaganda, developed in a years-long struggle with ISIS.
PT does not seem to be aware of these practices, and does not follow them. Naturally, this will raise the old guard's hackles; but there's an easy solution here, isn't there?
We should be telling people what the standards are & why they exist! I'll start with just two:
We should be telling people what the standards are & why they exist! I'll start with just two:
A) a series of no-context or low-context screenshots isn't ideal.
These ideas & this rhetoric are part of a spectrum of MAGA conduct and speech. Without context, readers can come away thinking that the stuff PT is posting is part of a lunatic fringe & not a violent mainstream.
These ideas & this rhetoric are part of a spectrum of MAGA conduct and speech. Without context, readers can come away thinking that the stuff PT is posting is part of a lunatic fringe & not a violent mainstream.
So an analyst should give the audience a BIT of context (at a minimum: is this person a significant influencer or a regular follower? But of course, more is better!).
For instance, this post, IMO, shows PT is fishing in the right spots: https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1353011550823591936?s=20
For instance, this post, IMO, shows PT is fishing in the right spots: https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1353011550823591936?s=20
But *there is no context* -- the audience doesn't understand what NTD News is (a Falun Gong outlet a la the Epoch Times) or its role in the right-wing media ecosystem (spewing Q-flavored lies: there's a REASON Lin Wood and Sidney Powell link to its content on their "news" site).
Having that kind of context to go along with the screenshots will, over time, build an audience that's MUCH better-informed about what's actually going on with the right wing, *and is therefore able to fight the right wing more effectively.*
It helps! PT should be doing it, IMO.
It helps! PT should be doing it, IMO.
And the thing is, PT DOES pass along good info! Here's an example -- this is a pretty good single-tweet summary of the Sovereign Citizen stuff that's increasingly infusing QWorld.
We just want to see more of that... https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1352160304340234242?s=20
We just want to see more of that... https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1352160304340234242?s=20
and less of just "you guys are nuts," which laypeople already think about QAnon fans & which is mostly just pointing and laughing. https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1352143758784045056?s=20
Again, more of this... https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1352138325310676992?s=20
and less of this: https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1352147221504921600?s=20
Basically, it is good to show the dynamics within QAnon and the right wing, and small bits of explanatory text go a long way towards doing that!
But it's bad to just go "HA HA HA look at the freakshow," because that makes people *less* aware of the threat instead of more.
But it's bad to just go "HA HA HA look at the freakshow," because that makes people *less* aware of the threat instead of more.
B) another best practice (and here we are getting closer to the, ugh, Controversy) is: be very conservative about what assertions you make. Do the data support them? Then roll with it and add your evidence.
Are you getting over your skis a LITTLE bit, but hewing pretty close to the stuff you can rock-solid prove? Then say that's what you're doing.
Are you speculating with little hard evidence, based mainly on a gut feeling? Sometimes that's very valuable! But *tell the audience*.
Are you speculating with little hard evidence, based mainly on a gut feeling? Sometimes that's very valuable! But *tell the audience*.
So this is where the "QAnon is a psyop" stuff comes in -- there is no hard evidence to support it.
In fact, before PT came along, the most prominent booster of that theory was Jim Stewartson, a guy who recently gave a TedX talk about QAnon which featured this slide:
In fact, before PT came along, the most prominent booster of that theory was Jim Stewartson, a guy who recently gave a TedX talk about QAnon which featured this slide:
Gang-stalking, for those who aren't familiar, is... well, why don't I let a professional talk about it? This is part 1 of a 3-part article (part 2 is WAY more relevant to understanding this, IMO, so read if interested! But Part I has the background.)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202010/gang-stalking-real-life-harassment-or-textbook-paranoia
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202010/gang-stalking-real-life-harassment-or-textbook-paranoia
So it's *not great* that the leading proponent of this theory is a gang-stalking believer.
Especially because Part II of that article (linked below) describes the "Gangstalking" idea as less delusion & more of a conspiracy theory.
@psychunseen NAILS it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202010/gang-stalking-conspiracy-delusion-and-shared-belief
Especially because Part II of that article (linked below) describes the "Gangstalking" idea as less delusion & more of a conspiracy theory.
@psychunseen NAILS it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/202010/gang-stalking-conspiracy-delusion-and-shared-belief
Aaaaaand we're here because we're *not big into conspiracy theories*, and because we see the danger inherent *in* conspiracy theories.
So! That's some useful background on why the old guard doesn't buy into the "psyop" theory: there's no hard evidence for it...
So! That's some useful background on why the old guard doesn't buy into the "psyop" theory: there's no hard evidence for it...
and the main guy promoting it has some deeply worrisome beliefs, and then promotes himself as Definitely For Sure Understanding QAnon And Knowing Who And What Is To Blame.
But again: there's no hard evidence! There IS some circumstantial evidence for their claims...
But again: there's no hard evidence! There IS some circumstantial evidence for their claims...
but basically, Stewartson has a long-running feud with a particular person and has wrapped that person into his beliefs about Q being a "psy-op" and/or "ARG," without any compelling evidence.
If you want to see the best case for Stewartson's claims, @River_Advntures wrote it.
If you want to see the best case for Stewartson's claims, @River_Advntures wrote it.
And it DID move the needle for me a LITTLE bit. But it moved the needle from "what are you people even talking about?" to "it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wrong," bc it takes scraps of true factual information & stitches them together into a very particular garment.
But you could make the scraps into SEVERAL types of clothing. They don't HAVE to be, like, +3 Gauntlets of Psyop Detection or whatever -- but that's the only kind of clothes the Psyop/ARG crowd will accept.
Ugh, this is a bad analogy. Here's the article. https://twitter.com/QOrigins/status/1329321518845681664?s=20
Ugh, this is a bad analogy. Here's the article. https://twitter.com/QOrigins/status/1329321518845681664?s=20
ANYWAY, my point here, which I started to make 5,321,997 words ago, was this:
in general it is good to make sure that your assertions are backed by strong evidence; if they aren't, IMO there is an ethical responsibility to tell readers when you're speculating. Bc they trust you!
in general it is good to make sure that your assertions are backed by strong evidence; if they aren't, IMO there is an ethical responsibility to tell readers when you're speculating. Bc they trust you!
And sometimes, speculation that *isn't* rock-solid certain is gonna turn out to be right. No one is saying not to speculate! Gut instincts are valuable.
But we ARE saying to present them as gut instinct, and not as settled fact -- bc there's no upside to the latter.
But we ARE saying to present them as gut instinct, and not as settled fact -- bc there's no upside to the latter.
ADDENDUM: Someone pointed out -- correctly! -- that just saying Jim's TedX talk "featured a slide" about gang-stalking doesn't prove Jim believes in gang-stalking.
That is 100% true! I should have just linked to the video, which DOES prove Jim's belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3697&v=1QbEcG8O-L8&feature=youtu.be
That is 100% true! I should have just linked to the video, which DOES prove Jim's belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3697&v=1QbEcG8O-L8&feature=youtu.be
