I am golden when it comes to psychological theory. I understand cognitive dissonance inside and out, projection, the id, ego, superego, etc and I see how it all comes into play. A lack of understanding in the realm of human behaviorism is not an issue.

My issue is that I am a HORRIBLE teacher. Critical thought is instinctual for me. I'm self aware and not afraid to state when I'm wrong. I am smart enough to know, that I don't know anything, and that allows me to assimilate new information with relative ease. When confronted with a belligerent, baseless attack, my instinct is to redirect from any name calling and ask the person to refute the merits of the argument. I will offer the information/sources that my idea is drawn from, and encourage others to view it, while also seeking their own sources. I NEVER ask people to 'trust' me. A sound argument doesn't require that.

What I have found is that a significant portion of those in opposition to Q are either unwilling or unable to formulate a position that isn't founded upon fallacious arguments. I cannot reach them, presumably because I can't put myself in their shoes to gain a greater understanding of their perspective…hence the horrible teacher part. I usually make one or two attempts to make headway with them, and after that, I bounce. Its not worth the time, and in all reality, nothing I can say will ever convince them.

I don't shy away from confrontation, but typically try to take a passive stance when challenged, hoping to facilitate an open discussion. I'm losing patience though. If a child is running around the house with a lighter, we don't sit them down, give them information on what a lighter is, what we use it for, and the dangers/consequences of fire, hoping that they'll make a good decision and then walk away while they burn the house down and tell their friends what a great idea it was. We confront the child and stop the behavior. These people may be adults, but in terms of their capacity to think critically, I'd put $$$ on my 2 year old over them any day. Is it really a good approach to allow the ill-perceived superiority, the condescension, the deception, the manipulation, etc to continue unchecked?

The worst of the bunch are the assholes that used to follow Q, but have egos so largely unchecked that they believe because their subjective interpretations went unproven or that events haven't proceeded at the pace they have personally decided, it must be destroyed. My guess is the most vocal ones were BTFO on the boards for being concernfags, felt rejected and now they've decided that their butthurt is best treated by smearing everything/everyone involved.

I will not claim that I haven't personally witnessed a fair share of people that have adopted cultish behavior towards Q. I find it unsettling myself because they're missing the point of why he's here. They don't understand the Socratic Method, and allow others to dictate their personal opinions. As a consequence, they lash out when anyone poses a question that goes against whatever they have been told is true. However, its a gross overgeneralization to classify all Q followers as the same, because most arrive at their conclusions via independent study & research. The same excommunicated concernfags are out there characterizing Q's (the actual words of Q, not the Anon shitposters) message as one that promotes antisemitism, aliens, and flat Earth theory.

They followed the movement, they know what its about, and they're choosing to be disingenuous fucks. Why does it feel like we are always silent in the face of the bullshit ad hominem attacks? Can we really depend on the merits of the information to be transformative in some way? Most of them don't even read.

Let me know how you guys are handling this/them, because I'm growing ill of the nonstop dumpster fire, shit show, and the neanderthal inside me just wants to tear them down and strip them bare.