The Now-Defunct Firms Behind 8chan, QAnon

I at least have read Marx. The idea that the government is a tool of class warfare is distinctly Marxist, as he's the one that made an argument for why this is. This is why Marx advocates for the State, before it is dissolved, to be put into the control of the proletarian class, the do callee Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which isn't a dictatorship in the common sense of the word).

At least from what I read, I don't think that they were arguing that Marx wanted the State to be an instrument of violence, just that he observed that the state was an instrument of violence for the ruling class, and made a good argument for why it would always be unless class itself was abolished. I think that they were referring to this intepretation, which is also compatible with what you said.

> Any observers still unclear on what the walls of text might be designed to do...

Knowing(!) what the walls of text are "designed to do" requires ESP abilities (are you suggesting these exist, and you possess them?), and is also inconsistent with what they are actually designed to do (I know, because unlike you, I happen to have direct access to my mind) - a more accurate motivation was arrived at (and confirmed by me) by one exceptionally skilled thinker if you care to read the thread.

> ...should note that anyone not in favor of letting Qanon run amok is required to produce incontrovertible evidence of every single assertion they make, held to an impossible standard if anyone is being dishonest

Observers should "note" this "fact"? Well, it's your claim, not mine. Not only have I not claimed this, I do not believe or agree with it - I consider this idea incredibly unrealistic, to the point of categorizing it under silly.

> ...while on the other side, statements like 'it's mostly "the left" doing the censorship these days' can be dropped without any supporting evidence at all.

"While on the other side" sounds like you're referring to me. Have I made any such claim about the left? Why are you speaking as if I have? Is that an honest mistake, or are you perhaps using deceit to implant invalid invalid ideas into the minds of other readers? This is actually the essence of my very complaint: the implanting of ideas that are not supported by evidence into vulnerable minds of other people - which ironically, is the very thing QAnon and conspiracy theorists do!

> For all the appeals to objectivity, the sea-lioning[0] is very much one-sided.

I find it very interesting (and ironic/hypocritical - see my other comment in the thread on this) that the collective brainpower of HN is not able to come up with a single argument that does not consist of rhetoric like this (individual sentence, and overall comment). I also find it interesting that when I point this out, it is only responded to with more rhetoric.

> http://www.wondermark.com/1k62/

I notice the author has posted some interesting followup errata comments on that comic:

http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/

> It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written.

> But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made.

> Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.

> My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing.

As you can see, the point of the comic is about behaviors: "Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors".

So in the context of this thread, the behavior that can be observed is people choosing to broadcast specific ideas [1] for which they do not have evidence, and are unwilling to defend with anything other than rhetoric. An overly imaginative person might also pick up a whiffs of things like intellectual superiority (the ironic kind), groupthink, peer pressure, tyranny of the majority, chilling effect, Overton Window enforcement, etc. Luckily, I am not such a person, I am simply making that observation.

Although, I do take exception with: "Since behaviors are the result of choice...". If one studies psychology and neuroscience, it becomes not so clear how much choice or free will people have when it comes to what they believe. At times, some beliefs seem to be (so they say) intertwined with the very identity of the person who holds them, and consequently, these beliefs can be very stubbornly held (within the subconscious mind) and if not formed via a logical process, cannot be dispelled with logic (and are often not defended by logic,or cannot be). Probably the most famous example of this type of belief is religion, which can come in many forms.

[1] ...which can affect belief formation in other people's minds, which can then infect other minds, rinse/repeat - this "virality of ideas" phenomenon can be more easily recognized by observing QAnon type subcultures rather than subtler instances like this thread.

https://www.google.com/search?q=case+study+propagation+of+me...

That might indeed be unrelated to the very central point, but I'm going to be slightly pedantic since this HN anyways.

So, you might not realize this, but actually the modern view of feudalism as a class system arising from the need of one class to control various factors of production, thus necessitating class warfare, is also Marxist. Marx did not just write about capitalism, he was basically one of the first sociologists writ large.

The general idea that the purpose of the government is to assist in class conflict is 100% Marxist. In fact, the definition of class in the modern sense that allows class warfare as a concept to really make sense is also Marxist. Indeed, the Marxist idea of class warfare wasn't just to explain capitalism, but also as an analysis of history, it provided the insight as of why changes in systems of governments seem to coincide with major economic developments, and so the first example of class warfare according to Marx goes all the way back to the invention of agriculture.

I don't mean this in a derogatory way at all, Marx's definitions here are generally accepted to be true even today in social sciences in general. In fact, I generally agree with your point, that the private sphere is not inherently good and the public sphere not inherently bad.

> You are claiming that because something cannot be proven false, it cannot be assumed false.

Not quite - it can easily be assumed false - I offer this thread as evidence. And I am certainly not making that claim - it is being inferred that I am making that claim, but if you read the text I have written, you will find no sign of it. Isn't that interesting...what might be going on here?

What I am complaining about is that everything that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it, is asserted as being(!) False.

> That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement.

No one here has done that. But plenty of people have done essentially the opposite: if something hasn't been proven True (regardless of any actual effort), then therefore it --is-- False. This is such comically flawed logic, it is near impossible to believe that it is being simultaneously followed by so many people who rely upon strict logic for their daily job. I would say that this paradox hints at the potency of the power that is in play.

> My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.

Maybe his report didn't quite line up with reality. Are journalists ever wrong? Do stories ever appear in the newspaper that are "a little" sensationalized?

What matters, is what is true. Or, at least, that's what should matter, and what used to matter. But it seems like a new post-truth culture is developing, and that culture can be found in very high concentrations right here on HN.

> why I ever thought the internet was about ideas

There was a time when the exchange of knowledge fostered education. I say this ironically, because that is what education is. Human civilisation exercises language to exchange ideas. It records this knowledge to extend education.

The Internet was/is a medium for exchange. In the historical view, the Internet is a sophisticated medium without precedent.

> When we say mainstream, I think we mean aligned to the dominant power

The word means prevailing discourse, or some perception of the prevailing discourse. It is healthy to question prevailing discourse -- or any discourse. But it is not healthy to abandon reason and the tests (and self-tests) of validity.

Wild assertions and unfounded accusations may divert weak minds, but they also seem to thrill fanatics.

> the desperate political struggle for approval that is mainstream social media.

People who favour their vanity over reason and truth are in deep trouble intellectually. Anti-intellectualism, if it becomes the prevailing discourse, will destroy a society.

> The reality is the mainstream is not "good," the public sphere is an open sewer

This is a sign of societal decline.

"Social media" is vulgar business. It is not about education, intelligent discourse, or even civilisation.