How do you know the scale of discourse would not have reached that level or higher without Q? The only thing we can judge is the impact post-Q and really that is not painting it any favors either. If we can confirm that it was a mainstream topic before Q and we can both agree the topic has died down post-Q it paints a picture to me. The same dogmatic zeal pops up, you cant talk about Q "there", but you can talk about it "here" but some topics are taboo so "they" would also exclude you from the place you can talk about Q if you talked too much about the Jews. I seriously doubt you are going to convince many people here that Q was more of a good thing than a bad thing. On the topic of pointing the finger at jews it did very little, and the hosts for major Q discussion always brushed it under the rug stiffing growing interest in the topic. Gab early days? The Donald? all very much shut down jew talk, and the more normie sites for sure kept that shutdown. In that respect Qs failure to directly address kikes (and their many crimes), and the "moderation" around Q further reinforced it being a taboo topic among its followers. We are not in disagreement about the evil of jews and the need to spread awareness but I think you efforts would be better spent going to Q places and convincing them of Jewish sourced evil in the world rather than convince us jew haters that Q actually helped the world reach that truth. In my opinion it is the stress of the rocky global reset the globohomos tried to implement that has made more people open to the discussion of "conspiracy" like topics.