I wish that people would stop using these terms that are not universally understood. I know that people think it’s cute to come up with their own little nicknames for these awful people in power, but not everybody is clued in. If you’re gonna use an acronym, the standard practice in writing is to define it the first time that you use it.

the party of q-anon, if you remember that insanity. The OP did not come up with their own cute little nickname, but using something that has been around for years.

And I consume news on many different platforms. Again, standard practice with a non-standard non- universally recognized acronym is to define it the first time it is used.

IOW, nutcases

with the MAGA adherents. This has gone on for several years now and the use of GQP has been in use for a very long time and over the last many years the references across the internet using GQP to indicate the intersection and identity of the GOP and the Q movement are in the millions. It is not new.

If I were to describe political parties and mention the Know Nothings or Whigs I am not going into digressions to explain their names. Usually if someone, in the course of reading anything, comes across something they don't understand or have no knowledge of the recommended practice is to "look it up" aka do your research.

My use of GQP is not a "one off" or something unique to me that I "came up with". It is not "my own" term or designation by any stretch.

I have never seen it, and I consume news on many different platforms. Again, standard practice with a non-standard non-universally recognized acronym is to define it the first time it is used.

And usually an author has a responsibility to write with clarity that doesn’t necessitate the reader deciphering what they’re saying by using secondary sources.

use the search function. It is hardly the "first time" this marriage of Q anon and the GOP has been done. It is not believable that have never come across Q anon and the crazies within it. GQP, as others have pointed out to you, is hardly unknown or obscure. As far as what you think an author should do you'll just have to realize that the world isn't going to do everything you want.

If I were to make alphabet mash of something and it was unique and was not widely used for the last several years I would explain what it was. Since that's not the case here it is not my responsibility to catch you up on things. The search engines can easily give you plenty of info about Q anon and the GQP reference. Typing in 3 letters and clicking the magnifying glass or hitting enter in a search box is not really a burden.

I do hours and hours of reading and entering terms into search so that I can get more references. I know others here do as well and I read their excellent posts and it spurs me to dig deeper and learn even more. There is nothing wrong here with what was written.

The issue isn’t whether I know how to use a search engine. The issue is whether a writer is communicating effectively with their audience.

Good writers don’t force readers to stop and decode insider jargon every few paragraphs. If your goal is communication rather than signaling membership in a particular group, you define uncommon terms when you first use them.

The existence of Google does not absolve writers of the responsibility to write clearly. By that logic, no author would ever need to explain anything because readers could simply look it up themselves.

What’s interesting is that you seem genuinely unaware that “GQP” is not a mainstream term. The fact that it feels self-evident to you actually illustrates the problem. When people spend enough time in an insular community, they begin to mistake that community’s vocabulary for universally understood language.

And saying that two other people agreed with you isn’t evidence that you’re right. It’s just an appeal to popularity. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on how many people in the room happen to share the same assumption.

Effective writing reduces the reader’s workload. It doesn’t assign homework.

harangue authors over the reader not being up to speed with common usage or feeling common usage needs to be spelled out for them rather than the reader taking responsibility for their own lack of knowledge of commonly used terms. The fact that you keep arguing the idea that usage of GQP or Q anon as a subject are somehow obscure shows that you clearly have still not done any research.

Since you appear unable or unwilling to do basic research on the subject here are some quick references obtained in less than one minute:

From search referencing britannica.com

"QAnon has been referenced extensively on social media platforms. From October 2017 to June 2020, over 69 million tweets, 487,000 Facebook posts, and 281,000 Instagram posts mentioned QAnon-related phrases or hashtags. This indicates a significant presence and engagement with the conspiracy theory across various online platforms."

A little more of the history at this link:

https://medium.com/insider/the-history-of-qanon-b73d644cfbac

Even more discussion about GQP and it having prominence in political discussion about the GOP and their embrace of Q anon:

https://scout.yahoo.com/chat/019e9193-6113-72d7-88a0-a7afc739f50e-a?fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Aw%2Cm%3AgenAiSum%2Cpos%3A1

Since you find my writing so burdensome to read I suggest you don't bother.

What’s striking is that you still haven’t addressed the actual argument.

My original comment was a simple request that you define “GQP.” I wasn’t asking what QAnon is. I already know what QAnon is. I wasn’t arguing that QAnon is obscure, nonexistent, or difficult to research.

Yet your response consists largely of proving that QAnon has a large online presence, which is a point I never disputed.

The question was whether “GQP” is a term that a writer can reasonably assume all readers will understand without definition. Those are entirely different issues.

The existence of search results does not transform community-specific jargon into mainstream language. If it did, every specialized term on the internet would qualify as common usage.

More importantly, a reader asking for clarification is not “haranguing” an author. It’s participating in a discussion. I asked a question about a writing choice. You responded by questioning the reader rather than defending the choice itself.

And that’s perhaps the most telling part of this exchange. What began as a discussion about audience awareness and clear writing ended with personal defensiveness and an invitation not to read your work.

If a writer’s response to a reader asking for clarification is “don’t read me,” that seems less like a defense of the writing and more like an admission that the discussion has moved from the merits of the argument to irritation that the question was asked at all.

In any event, I think we’ve probably reached the end of the conversation. I remained focused on the writing. You seem more interested in criticizing the reader.

making your argument. GQP has been widely used by Democratic officials including Pelosi. There have been discussions over the years among them over the years about whether the use of it is counterproductive and perhaps alienates less radical conservatives and what few moderate Republicans still exist. That information is easily found doing a moment or two of search.

If I had "invented" or dreamed up some acronym to use in a post I would define it on first use but that is not the case here on this site especially where the acronym has been used for years. Remember that you came to the site and the article. Nobody sent you a message to your inbox. If you are unfamiliar with acronyms or references used here then look them up rather than giving some rap to the poster who is simply making a post for a community that has used the references and terms with each other for years.

The failing to understand is yours and I have no idea how you conducted yourself in your academic years but as a teacher or professor I would have failed you in a history, literature, public policy etc. class if every time you came across something you didn't know you were demanding that I explain it to you rather than you making easy use of readily available reference sources.

As I said before since it is burdensome for you to do reference search while reading an article and you don't like the way an author of a post presents his writing then don't read the posts.

You’re still responding to an argument I wasn’t making.

My point has never been whether GQP exists, whether it can be looked up, or whether it has been used on Democratic Underground for years. My point has been that widespread use within a particular community does not automatically make a term mainstream or universally recognized.

You keep asserting that the term is widely known, but assertion is not evidence. Pointing out that Democratic Underground users, Democratic activists, or certain Democratic politicians have used it does not demonstrate that it is broadly recognized outside those circles. In fact, I searched both The New York Times and The Washington Post and found no occurrences of the term at all. That doesn’t prove the term is unknown, but it certainly undermines the claim that it is part of widespread mainstream discourse.

What I find interesting is that you keep turning a discussion about writing into a discussion about reader competence. Those are two different things.

Good writers routinely define acronyms, jargon, and specialized terminology, not because readers are incapable of looking things up, but because clear communication is generally considered a virtue. The ability of a reader to perform a search has never eliminated the writer’s responsibility to consider the audience.

The professor analogy is especially odd. No professor I ever had considered asking for clarification to be an academic failing. Quite the opposite. Questioning assumptions, identifying ambiguity, and examining language are fundamental academic skills.

What I find most curious, however, is the repeatedly condescending tone you’ve adopted throughout this exchange. I have criticized an argument and a writing choice. I have not questioned your intelligence, your education, your research habits, or your qualifications. In return, I have been told that I fail to do research, fail to understand, and would have failed academically.

That seems like a remarkably personal response to a simple disagreement about communication and writing style.

If your position is that terms like GQP do not need to be defined, then defend that position. But repeatedly shifting from the argument itself to judgments about the person making the argument does not strengthen your case. It simply suggests that criticism of an idea is being taken as criticism of the individual.

More broadly, I think this exchange illustrates one of the weaknesses of insular communities. A term becomes so familiar within the group that people begin to assume it is universally understood, and when someone points out otherwise, the response is often defensiveness rather than reflection.

You are free to think definitions are unnecessary. I am free to think they improve clarity. That is a disagreement about communication, not evidence that anyone has failed to do research.

you know it. You came to a community of people who use some terms you don't know. Nobody shoved this stuff in your inbox. Rather than do your own research you chose to chastise the author over writing style. That's the long and the short of it. I told you if doing research on references you don't know is too burdensome for you then don't read what I post. It's that straightforward. I am not going to sit down and write informal posts on a political community web site and think to myself whether each and every person who might read it knows everything and every reference I make and how I can put explanations in to cover every single reference for every single person. You seem to want formal writing with footnotes etc.

If you don't know the slang it's up to you to get with it. Much of what I write makes references and has links to help people see where the references are from and I always hope they will find the sites/articles interesting and even pique their interest on tangent subject matter. This is an informal community of people who write interesting posts, link to interesting articles and have a vast amount of diversity, life experience, career experience and education both formal and street. The posts here are informally written and informative and may use terms and references strange to some but familiar to others. Think of what your teachers or a librarian would tell you if you said to them that you came across a term or reference you didn't know. All of my teachers and professors would have looked at me and their response would have been "Look it up!" and the librarians I've known would have given me a frown and, very quietly, told me to do the same. I wouldn't have had it any other way. My curiosity is my responsibility to satisfy.

I think we’re done here.

You continue to argue against a position I never took, while the point I was actually making has gone largely unaddressed. At this stage, that seems unlikely to change.

Ironically, my original observation was about audience awareness. Your response has been to repeatedly explain why understanding the audience is the audience’s responsibility.

That’s your prerogative, of course. But this exchange has not increased my interest in reading more of your work, so I’ll leave it there.

The visual of it is effective.

As soon as the reconciliation bill is passed, Trump and Blanche will continue to move forward with the slush fund. There is no reason to believe anything that comes out of this White House. And let’s not forget that the deal on the audit is still in place. And that is just as much a theft of taxpayer dollars as the slush fund. Democrats need to hammer that point home.

It stinks to high heaven.

let ppl in tight races object to/vote against something unpopular.

... that the rubes don't finally understand what the game is. They want the grift to go on...

There's not threading the needle.

People who don't like Trump aren't going to vote to Republicans regardless of if they can point to some obscure thing that didn't end up happening and people who do like him aren't going to vote for congressmen who stand up to him a little.