732
Second Boeing whistleblower dies suddenly (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (21 children)

Deducing from headlines and circumstances while ignoring crucial information is exactly what QAnon does

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (20 children)

    Thinking it's possible a seedy thing happened =/= making up reams of bullshit based on a number in the background but sure everyone who disagrees with you is qanon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    I intended to make it more like a cautionary tale. QAnon can happen to the best of us, and seedy thoughts that still consider that it was an illness for a while are sort of an entry point to the thought pattern behind conspiracy theories. If one builds tolerance to this kind of leap, it'll be easier to build tolerance for much bigger leaps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (18 children)

    QAnon can happen to the best of us,

    I don't agree. It happens to vulnerable people. And it's not like a disease you can catch if you're not vigilant. There are many steps to becoming bat shit, and wondering if a specific corporation would kill a person isn't something I'm willing to avoid because next thing I know I'd be trying to hang the vice president.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Everyone is vulnerable in one way or another. Of course, wondering is natural, but seriously accepting it, as some in this thread have done, is a QAnon kind of leap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (14 children)

    wondering if a specific corporation would kill a person

    You have to realize how your first post came off. The poster you responded to clearly was talking about the people claiming Boeing did it. Of which there are plenty of this thread.

    You then jumped in and said this wasn't conspiracy nonsense, but the result of "obvious deductive powers."

    This did not come off as merely "wondering" or considering it a possibility, but as if you were saying it was an obvious fact.

    I'm not even sure how to interpret that comment in relation to what you're saying now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

    What I remember seeing was people making implications and jokes. People don't always mean things 100% literally. I doubt there are all that many people totally convinced it was Boeing, but some of you are acting like that is the case. I disagree, that is all

    Ps deductive reasoning doesn't mean "I know it for a fact"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    If my kid goes into the kitchen, and I go in a little while later and see the cookies are gone, i'm going to believe they ate them. Am I 100% convinced of it? No. Maybe i just didn't realize they had been eaten earlier, or maybe someone snuck in the back and ate them. But I'm relatively convinced they ate the.

    I'm sure there are very few people, at most, that are convince 100% that Boeing did it. But it's very presumptuous to assume that all of the people in this thread claiming Boeing did it are just joking. Seems more reasonable to take their statements at face value and understand that they do think Boeing did it, or at least someone related to boeing did it.

    But I'm not sure what this has to do with what was suggested by your initial post.

    Ps deductive reasoning doesn’t mean “I know it for a fact”

    By definition deductive reason is using logic to come to a specific conclusion, so it absolutely does mean it's a fact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    Deductive reasoning means using evidence so no you're flat wrong. Also, ever heard of a "knee jerk reaction"? Hint, that also isn't a term that means you're sure of anything

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    You're confusing deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. But I wouldn't even call it inductive reasoning, as it's really just an empty hypothesis where people are putting what they want to be the truth into the holes of our knowledge...or hell even outright rejecting evidence, like qanons do.

    And, again, Ive already agreed that they don't 100% believe it. But arguing that they don't think Boeing had this person killed is just ignoring what they said and assuming what you want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    This conversation started with some people cheekily blaming Boeing (a fair first reaction). Then some dude chided everyone for being like qanon, I said that was a deep over exaggeration, now here I am getting a lesson in pedantry. What even are conversations like this?

    I read the thread one way and a couple others didn't. End of story.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    "oh, sorry. I was mistaken about what deductive reasoning means, and I can see why what I said did not convey what I actually think. Thanks for the correction.'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

    "Sorry for caring more about pedantry than the topic at hand. I'll speak to my therapist about that"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Lol I assure you me and my therapist have way more pressing issues to talk about than you refusing to admit you are wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    The fact that you think a phrase can't imply a "potential conclusion" and instead must be a "certain conclusion" would agree with you there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    What didn't you understand about me and my therapist having more important things to discuss than you being wrong and refusing to admit it?

    Oh, wait, I see what this is. It's a projection. Your inability to admit you are wrong is something you realize you need to work through, which is why you are claiming that I have issues I need to work through.

    You'll be fine tho, it's not that big of a thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    You see you just admitted you got issues beyond "me being wrong". I used your words against you to say I agree. Surely a pedant could appreciate the weaponization of an opponent's words to use against them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Oh I see, people mean what they say when it confirms what you want to be true, but when it puts you in a tricky spot... Well, then, man you have to be really stupid to think they actually mean it.

    Lol how convenient

    Pure gold, my man

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •