What is QAnon?

SFC Thomas Foreman - At this point, it's honestly a lot more complicated than just "who one voted for". I know plenty of people who voted for Clinton who would be angry beyond words if even a third of the accusations against her proved accurate. Similarly, I know plenty of people (including Yours Truly) who voted for Trump, and would be equally furious if half of what he's alleged to have been involved with proved accurate. The trouble is... no one knows WHAT to believe anymore. All we do know is that one half of the country seems to define patriotism and prosperity one way... while another seems to believe there's no cure but to tear it all down and start over. It's no surprise to me that amidst all of that, people will cook up all sorts of "theories" to try and make their opposition even MORE of a bogeyman. That being said, some of these "theories" are very, very hard to dismiss, and maybe only a blind man wouldn't at least consider the implications. Myself personally? I think we live in a sick society obsessed with darkness, perversity, and power... I don't believe voting one way or the other in any election is going to "fix" that.

LCDR Joshua Gillespie I think all of that is rooted in tribalism. I have felt for some time that much of the hardcore far left/far right posturing stems from this damn infuriating desire of many Americans to never ever admit to being wrong. So you double down, back yourself into a corner and next thing you know you’re down the rabbit hole of crazy and it’s too late.

We do live in a society that has many, many dark aspects. But most of those engaged in such things aren’t rich famous or powerful. We just hear more about the ones that are.

Take any high profile mass shooting. How many people bypass any story or information on the victims and start looking at the perpetrator’s voting record?

SFC Thomas Foreman - To a point, I agree with you. However, it is equally frustrating when one "side" refuses to admit that it really isn't their place to tell everyone on the "other side" what to do either. We are not a holistic society; we've been a collection of polyglot cultures since the very beginning, and there's really nothing particularly "wrong" about that. People living in California should vote for the laws they want... and people living in Tennessee should do the same. Where things MUST be unilateral (and that should, by design, be as little as possible), the Federal Government should rely on elected representatives to pass legislation that takes compromises into account from both sides. Where there's a "tie", the SCOTUS is supposed to be an impartial referee (rather than an all powerful veto). That means sometimes, one "side" or the "other" is going to have to bend... or we all break. It goes without saying there are some issues that simply shouldn't be touched; perhaps that's an "art of diplomacy" we've lost in a sea of "me-activism".

I don't know that I agree completely that our worst aspects aren't deeply rooted among our most powerful. Money buys influence, and influence buys permissiveness. If someone who is worth fifty million dollars (let alone a billion) wants something... it's logical to infer they have easier access with fewer consequences than someone worth only fifty thousand. It's not that "only" the rich and famous could be perverts... it's that their power presents the opportunity for any who are to be both more prolific, and less subject to penalty.

As for the "mass shooting" issue, I'll agree that we often lose sight of the tragedy and evil looking for the "roots"... but to be frank, both parties are equally guilty of trying to make broad associations. I also think it's unwise to dismiss the notion that whether "Left" or "Right", it is beyond the realm of possibility that at some level... things are "influenced" or "capitalized" upon for mass effect.

In short, I fear that whether it's based on any truth or not... we're being asked to dismiss any questioning of the "status quo" as incoherent clap-trap, and anyone subscribing to it as "radical", possibly subversive. We do not live in (or at least we're not supposed to be living in) an intellectual aristocracy... i.e., the common man has a right to question the narrative, regardless of the source. Where I feel we need to exercise caution (particularly now) is in taking everything at face value.

LCDR Joshua Gillespie I don’t think we’re far apart in anything either of us has said here, and I greatly appreciate the thoughtful exchange. Feels like our individual thoughts on this subject are slightly different spice blends in the same recipe. Thanks for the discussion.