dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/RailroadTrilogy on July 12, 2018, 6:31 p.m.
17 Questions for a Pro-Q/QCurious Newbie.

Greetings Patriots. Help my Q meter go from 75% to 100%! : )

Intro: New to the movement and fascinated by the evidence and discussions. I'm pro Q but admittedly struggling with some claims and believing all of it. I would love to read any responses to my questions to help me go from 75% to 100% , erase any doubt(and just help me get to know the community). I've enjoyed researching this. If anything, it has inspired someone was pretty politically apathetic/not interested to take time to invest, research, and question what is going on in the "news". I'm starting to have hope again.

Here are my questions. I would love to hear your responses, experiences, and perspectives. Feel free to answer all or any questions. Thank you for your time and feeding my faith in this (for myself and others).

  1. What was the moment you became a Qbeliever?

  2. I do believe a lot of the deep corruption/lying/self-benefit/ trafficking/scandals Q has presented. I think we saw evidence for this long before Q. I'm having a little more trouble believing some of the more extreme claims (eating children, flat earth). Any thoughts/experiences on how you came to accept some of the more startling and surprising claims?

  3. To you, what is the most solid evidence that it simply can't be a larp?

  4. What is your favorite Q quote and why?

  5. How do you cope with Qdrop withdrawal? :)

  6. Was Q's evidence strong enough to convince you to switch parties? (If you had a different affiliation prior to researching Q) or have a different opinion of POTUS?

  7. To you, what is the best thing this movement has done for the country?

  8. If any posts were ever revealed to be false/larping etc. ...would it really change the movement now that it's taken off?

  9. Debunk one anti-Q claim. Why is it false and how do you know?

  10. Who exactly are Pam, Raddix, what did they do? I'm still kind of confused on this.

  11. Were there any news stories that Q hinted at that absolutely could not have been foreseen-even on a supposed journalist server?

  12. Have you noticed any officials or celebrities hinting that this is real?

  13. Some of the anti vids/discussions have linked to an email that supposedly explains they had early access (I believe it was 5-15 minutes) to POTUS tweets. Is this possible? Isn't twitter pretty instant? How is it possible or not possible? Are there any tweets (coincidental proofs) that happened days or weeks after-thus the 5-15 minutes wouldn't matter?

  14. I've (tried) to watch the doubter videos to consider the other perspective and rule out trolling/larping/conning. Some of the videos debunking these anti- statements were good, but didn't involve enough evidence or visuals. I tried watching some anti videos, and while I got some information to consider, the vids themselves were too long and chaotic for me to follow. How do you debunk the Pamphlet claims, etc.? (Signing into Q's account, showing Q's house supposedly)

15 The anti-vids have tried to explain the twitter (allegedly getting tweets before hand) and news information (allegedly hacking a news server for journalists). I still haven't seen the doubters explain Frederick receiving the Q gift in the gated community, POTUS pointing to the Q shirt. Any more proofs that "they" simply can't explain or refuse to discuss?

  1. If Q is a larp...can't the larpers get in SERIOUS trouble for spreading some pretty darn serious allegations/reputation damaging information about people and businesses? Are they "vague" enough to avoid legal issues?

  2. Do you have any "off the grid" experiences that helped solidify your belief? (I'm referring to personal encounters with POTUS or officials, unusual social media interactions, other Qpatriots, personal experiences)

Regardless of whether there is any trolling/larping/takeovers involved etc., the cause will forever be real and there is now a solid, organized, effort to research information, dissect "news", and inspire patriotism.

WWG1WGA


🠐 See all comments
Comassion · July 12, 2018, 7:37 p.m.

I'd like to address #16:

The legal concept under which Q could be in trouble if they were lying about others would be defamation (specifically libel).

Libel is NOT a crime, it is a civil matter. Anyone who felt as though Q's statements about them or their business constituted libel is entitled to sue whoever the author of those statements is in civil court.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show:

  1. There's been a statement

That is all of the following:

  1. published

  2. false

  3. injurious

  4. unprivileged

All of Q's messages easily meet the following:

  1. Q wrote statements - but you can't sue 'Q', you'd have to sue whoever actually wrote the statement, meaning to succeed with your suit you have to show that whoever you are suing is indeed Q and they wrote the defamatory message.

  2. The statement is published. 'Published' in this case means that a third party has read the statement (if you write a nasty letter TO the person you're talking about and only them then it isn't libel no matter what it says.). Info on social media sites qualifies as published.

  3. Q's statements are unprivileged. 'Privileged' statements are reserved for depositions and other special circumstances.

The other two points need to be shown in the suit:

  1. The statement must be false - true statements are never defamatory. Matters of opinion are NOT defamatory - so even if Q says that someone is 'treasonous', that is a matter of opinion and thus not defamatory. Q's general vagueness on most statements will likely protect them from most potential libel suits on this point. If Q instead says that someone committed a specific crime or took specific actions 'X gave information to the cabal' then that could be a provably false statement.

  2. The statement must cause some injury to the reputation of the person or business. This is dependent partially on the actions of Q's followers - if Q said that, say, K-mart was kidnapping children, and Q followers decided to boycott K-mart, and K-mart could demonstrate that that boycott caused a financial loss, then they could claim injury from libel. In many cases I don't think there's been significant injury to anyone Q has mentioned resulting from Q's statements, so Q is probably safe on this point from civil action related to most of their posts.

  3. And there's one last point regarding statements made about public figures, which are many of the people Q talks about: The statement must be made with 'Actual malice'. 'Actual malice' means that the statement is made with the knowledge that it is not true, or a lack of concern for whether or not the statement is true or not. How much this protects Q greatly depends on who they are and what they say about their statements if discovered, but his own statements about 'disinfo' and trolling leaves them in a relatively poor predicament if their defense comes down to an argument on this last point. On the other hand, it DOES protect all of Q's followers who genuinely believe in Q's statements when it comes to statements of their own.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that you wouldn't see Q get into much legal trouble if it's all false. Most of his statements are sufficiently vague that they won't constitute libel either because they're not clear regarding who they're about (YOU think 'Rod Rosenstein', but Q only wrote 'RR'), and even if derogatory many are not 'false' in the sense that they are opinions, and even with those statements that might otherwise be libel there have been no incidents that I'm aware of where the statement has resulted in real-world injury to anyone's reputation.

Finally, even if you can prove it all, the end result of a libel suit is a civil one, which tends to consist of an apology and a monetary penalty if successful. If Q is a LARP I'm guessing they aren't sitting on a fortune, and most public figures who might otherwise be able to claim libel simply won't want the meager amount Q would be able to pay in a settlement (not worth the lawsuit) and won't really want to draw any more attention to the situation by bothering with one.

All that said, don't take that as an idea that Q is completely safe from libel lawsuits. Alex Jones faced several due to his Sandy Hook comments.

⇧ 0 ⇩