I'm going to get back to doing what I'm doing in a minute, but.
If you think anyone can uncover everything they need to know to explain QAnon in 2 weeks without starting at a conclusion and working backwards, you're indulging in a fantasy that plays to what you want to hear.
If you think anyone can uncover everything they need to know to explain QAnon in 2 weeks without starting at a conclusion and working backwards, you're indulging in a fantasy that plays to what you want to hear.
What I'm saying is that if you look at a result, and then try to construct a theory of its origin by using that result as evidence, you run the risk of giving people magic powers.
You end up arguing that Coca-Cola made New Coke bad on purpose to get people to buy Coke Classic.
You end up arguing that Coca-Cola made New Coke bad on purpose to get people to buy Coke Classic.
For the record, I find many theories about present-day QAnon to be highly likely. If you've been around with me, I have advocated for many of these theories myself.
But then to say, "clearly it was ALWAYS designed to achieve these results" is magical thinking.
But then to say, "clearly it was ALWAYS designed to achieve these results" is magical thinking.
Intelligent Design is a truly great example of this (for more than one reason) and I am ashamed I didn't think to use it.
https://twitter.com/patmccarthy68/status/1339423678048681984?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
