Scott Adams Q Logic Bomb

Scott Adams is a good and clever cartoonist. Otherwise don't care what he has to say about Q.

Certainly not 39 minutes worth.

tl:dw

Considering how much time people spend on Q, 39 minutes of reason and logic isn’t OTT.

I wont engage in debate about whether Q is real or a LARP. I haven’t engaged in any discussion of Q for months.

I have my own view.

But if you’re somebody who spends much of your free time disappearing down the Q rabbit hole, you owe it to yourself to watch the video.

Synopsis: SA says trust him. He has sources.

He is much more than that. He is an NLP expert who correctly predicted Trump would win well ahead of the election.

He saw through the bullshit of labeling Trump a racist along with the other crap, and how the country would be divided.

Win Bigly worth a read. I like to throw this one out at the libs as opposed to simply telling them "You didn't think Trump was racist before the election.".

You’re talking crap.

That was the very last thing he said, after spending about 36 minutes on a whole bunch of other aspects to consider. And he never said “trust me”. He said “make up you’re own mind”.

But, since you raise that point.... yes, he has sources you don’t have.

He was meeting Trump in the Oval Office less than two weeks ago.

How’s that for a source?

Last Edited by SovereignMe on 08/10/2018 01:51 PM

Go to 33:00. He absolutely implied he has sources and info he cannot reveal. What is the take away from that statement? Trust me. How do you interpret it?

interesting stuff

Calling your single point a synopsis is outright fraud.

He spent 95% of the time explaining his perspective, without talking about sources.

But you believe whatever you want. Just don’t misrepresent what he said. Which is what you did by saying “Synopsis: SA says trust him. He has sources.”

He didn’t spend 39 minutes saying over and over again “I have a source”. That’s what you’re saying, and it’s false.

Last Edited by SovereignMe on 08/10/2018 02:20 PM

I encourage all to view this video and decide for yourself. He makes his case and ends with essentially Trust us 3 who have inside info we cannot share. Really?

Yes, he makes his case, and his final argument is “we have sources”. It was not his only argument.

I’m glad you encourage others to watch the video for themselves.

I’ve already formed my own opinion of Q, but if we’re talking sources who can’t be named, I’ll trust Scott Adams over anonymous posts on the chans.

He just met with Trump. Who do you think his source might be?

His logic: If Q is real the government would have shut it down. Weak sauce for sure!

Last Edited by surfdaddy on 08/10/2018 02:45 PM

How do we know he can trust his inside information?

How do you know you’re not living in a simulation?

Oh don't bring logic and facts to a three-fiddy...not worth your time...I made lots of money betting on Trump and SA was the basis of it...

The answer to both questions is; we don’t. Way to answer a ?with a ?.

I blew half an hour on the guy, in honor of his old cartoons and his support of President Trump.

Short summary: Adams makes some strong arguments that Q is not literally correct (on the level of Gospel). He eventually concedes that Q may have some nonpublic information. His final comment, the most laughable one, is essentially that we should trust his anonymous sources instead.

Longer summary:

1) Adams says that Q-followership is like a religion, in that one small group believes it is right and everyone else is wrong. He concedes that such may well be true, but it will not be obvious to an outsider. He ignores the fact that most religions nowadays do not classify other religions as 100% wrong anyway; rather, they see other religions as possessing various fractions of the truth but not the full body of Divine revelation. More generally, Adams continually imposes his own fallacious dichotomy (true/false, real/LARP) on issues that easily accommodate degrees.

2) Adams asserts that unnamed sources are generally unreliable. This is quite laughable, since he later refers to the New York Times and himself as reliable, even though both rely heavily on alleged unnamed sources.

3) Adams acknowledges that one cannot prove a negative. This is essentially the "anything's possible" meme which should chasten the pride of anyone (like Adams) who thinks that the easiest answer is always the correct one.

4) Adams criticizes the cult defense used by self-protective groups. Group leaders tell the faithful in advance that outsiders are harmful, or at least have harmful ideas, and should not be given a listening. He implies that sensible people should be willing to listen critically to information from any source without a priori dismissal. Good advice for everyone.

5) Adams points out that if you look hard enough, in enough different ways, you can always find patterns that correspond to what you want to believe. His example is the Bible Code phenomenon of some years back. Adams's point is that if you try every possible decoding method on a text, you will eventually hit some interpretation that you want to accept.

6) Adams asserts that if two people are in a room, and one claims to see an object that the other does not, the one who sees something is probably crazy. This argument is totally false, for two reasons. First, one cannot a priori trust either person, so it is just as possible that the second person is "gaslighting"--pretending not to see the object in order to convince the first that he is losing his mind. Second, his argument only applies to a simple childlike observation (that an object is present). In more complicated examples, the one who perceives the pattern may be the more skilled. For example, an expert who knows a file format may extract meaningful data even though others who are unfamiliar with that format see only gibberish.

7) Adams points out that humans are more likely to believe what the people surrounding them believe. Laughably, he later tries to apply this crowd effect himself by listing two other people besides himself who agree with him!

8) Adams totally, woefully misdefines and misunderstands confirmation bias. It is a genuine phenomenon--the tendency to favor evidence that confirms our hypothesis over equally compelling evidence that refutes it--but Adams's explanation is nonsensical.

9) Adams points out that if a truth is obvious enough, all smart people will agree to it. This is not true; and even if it were, it would be meaningless. Almost by definition, everything important in life is debatable--that's why we have multiple religions, moral standards, ideologies, political parties, lifestyles, etc.

10) Adams asserts that if Q had any classified information, he would make money with it. This is an utterly idiotic argument. First, because the government severely punishes those who personally profit from classified information. But more importantly, there are some people in the world who have goals higher than money (happiness in Heaven, justice here on earth, etc.).

11) Adams asserts that no experts vouch for Q. Hilariously, he considers himself and mainstream news outlets as experts! He also ignores the fact that various experts have, at times, agreed with at least some elements of Q's posts.

12) Adams asserts that Q is only right when discussing the past, never the future. This is not entirely true, and Adams's explanation actually follows a different direction: That Q's correct guesses are weak enough, and rare enough, to be unconvincing.

13) Adams points out that any so-called mind reader can make vague, general guesses that are likely to strike a chord in an eager listener. This is a valid cautionary point: Specific guesses/predictions that turn out to be exactly correct are much more convincing than vague ones that end up only arguably correct.

14) Adams finally concedes that Q may indeed have some unpublished sources of information--i.e., that Q may well be more than just a LARP.

15) Adams asserts that if Q were at all real, the government would shut it down. This is an idiotic argument, of course, since Q claims that he is acting with the approval, or at least the tolerance, of the Trump administration. Sarah Sanders was specifically asked about Q, but her answer totally avoided the question. (She condemned advocacy of violence, which Q certainly does not do anyway.)

16) In conclusion, Adams claims that he (and Jack Posobiec, etc.) have unnamable secret sources that indicate to him the falsehood of Q, and that perhaps he even knows who Q really is. Once again I must emphasize the laughability of a cartoonist expecting us to trust his own unnamed Secret Squirrel sources.

Last Edited by BeSkeptical on 08/10/2018 09:56 PM

By the way, I must point out a very convincing argument that Q is, at least, more than a LARP:

On one day last week, dozens of mainstream news outlets suddenly published "news" stories mindlessly condemning Q, employing false and idiotic arguments. This was clearly a Mockingbird operation, indicating that the Deep State considers now Q a significant threat that can no longer be ignored.

Last Edited by BeSkeptical on 08/10/2018 09:01 PM

Agree.