We need YNot. If QAnon can spread theories that some people believe, why can’t YNot? Or maybe QAnut — I’m not sure which sounds better.
You can’t debunk insane theories. Believe me — my many years in the news business have taught me one important thing: questioning crazy people just make things worse. Even looking at crazy people makes things worse. They’re not going to believe any argument you have and if you show the slightest interest in what they’re saying, you never get rid of them.
You can tell a QAnon believer that the basement in the D.C. pizza joint/pedophile hangout was empty and there were no tortured children in sight, but it won’t matter. The kids could have moved next door before the QAnon guy got there.
If, like the President, you’re unfamiliar with QAnon, he or she or they is someone (or something) who claims, among other things, that there is a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles running a child sex-trafficking ring while also plotting against President Trump.
This, of course, sounds like a practical (but not very funny) joke to most people. I picture the guy who came up with this laughing hysterically at anyone taking this seriously. But his/her/their followers are prone to violence and general weirdness, so something probably needs to be done.
The solution isn’t censorship or evidence or even arrests. Those things will only confirm their beliefs. What we need are more and better conspiracy theories. QAnon believers will accept nothing else.
Consider what conspiracy believers have in common: they’re extremely gullible. If they believe Q, they’ll believe Y. They’ll also believe anyone claiming to be Q if the pronouncements are weird enough.
So, if you’re serious about combatting QAnon craziness, you need to be creative and come up with new conspiracies to guide believers toward less destructive reactions. Do this either as Q or come up with another believable/unbelievable character.
For example, did you know that the President Trump we’re seeing on television now isn’t the real President Trump? We saw him whisked off to Walter Reed. What came back was an imposter. The real one is in a cell in a shaft at the Bingham Canyon Copper Mine in Utah. The only way to save him is to gather the militia at the bottom of the mine and refuse to leave until he’s released.
The Deep State is watching you. They’re using Google satellites and facial recognition to target anyone who opposes them. The only way to survive is to wear a mask.
Pedophiles do not eat broccoli.
Start spreading the news.
Time for a hypothetical: Your client owns a restaurant in South America that gets invaded by a terrorist group. The bad guys demand money, so the client gives them $100 and flees to the United States. The client later is told the terrorists came back to the restaurant and threatened to punish him for skipping town.
Should this client be granted asylum in the U.S.?
Let’s throw in another item: the client married a U.S. citizen. That should do it, right?
If you shook your head sadly, you are correct. Immigration rulings continue to be mind-boggling. Check out this ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Before looking at it, can you guess the reason for tossing the restaurateur out of the country?
The answer is the $100 he was forced to fork over was “material support” for terrorists.
Apparently, you have to die to qualify for asylum.
Subscribe to our columns
Want new op-eds sent directly to your inbox? Subscribe below!