> This tactic is a close relative of [[Concern Trolling]] and [[Sealioning]]. See [[Concern Trolling vs. Sealioning vs. JAQ|this writeup]] to find out how they differ. ## Summary A tactic by which an otherwise-indefensible claim is phrased as a question, in order to pose an argument without allowing it to be scrutinized as such. What distinguishes JAQ from merely phrasing a claim as a question is the response of the claimant to a rebuttal; an honest claim will be owned and defended, whereas a dishonest claim will be further obfuscated, often by phrases such as *"I never said that,"* or the rather unsubtle *"I'm not saying \<claim\>, I'm just asking questions."* JAQ is used especially to support [[Conspiracy Belief|conspiracy and other anti-establishment narratives]] because many such claims lack a widely-known or respectable rationale. A JAQ claim serves to exploit its audience's unfamiliarity with and resulting low epistemic barrier regarding a complex topic, a barrier which is further lowered by the claim being intellectually flattering. Conspiracy narratives are a strong fit for this role as they play into a popular sentiment that is already [[Counterculture is Mainstream|dominated by a vague dissatisfaction with the status quo.]] Given that JAQ is disproportionately used to cover for baseless and absurd claims, even if a claim is clearly identified, debunking it is often borderline impossible - absurd claims are absurd by virtue of the absurdity of their priors, meaning that any deconstruction must be performed recursively. This phenomenon is laid out by [[Brandolini's Law]]. Beyond shielding the claimant from their burden of proof, JAQ counterintuitively *increases* a claim's persuasive value because it allows the audience to feel as if they have arrived at a given conclusion through their own independent thought process, rather than simply being told what to think. Effective JAQ uses leading questions and implied priors to ensure its claims are intuitively understood, but wraps them in phrasing so neutral or vague that its payload remains deniable. A significant gap exists between subconscious and conscious recognition of the claim being made; recognizing the dishonesty inherent in a denial is a leap further. Only at the highest level of awareness does the tactic truly become apparent to its marks. ### Just Asking Questions vs. Dogwhistling > This will eventually be spun off into a dedicated comparative analysis article. The rhetorical concepts underlying JAQ are similar to those involved in [[Dogwhistling]]; these tactics are naturally complementary and are often used together. At a high level, they share a defensive mechanism: *denial* - retorts in either case commonly use some permutation of the aforementioned *"I never said that."* They differ in what this denial is primarily employed to do: whereas JAQ serves as an argumentative tool, dogwhistling is more concerned with signaling to an ingroup so as to segment the audience. [[Just Asking Questions#^fa0b4d|Some questions fit into both categories,]] serving both to prevent an open discussion of claims, and to confirm a message's intent to those already in the know. It is easier for an informed interlocutor to definitively identify and call out a dogwhistle than a JAQ claim, as the dogwhistle is far more straightforward in its phrasing and thus does not carry the same level of plausible deniability. Although JAQ claims are crafted specifically to be easily understood from the question being asked, an audience will be less receptive to accusations of JAQ, as the actual questions may be facially valid, and the tactic itself carries less inherent or overt malice than a dogwhistle. ## Examples [[Betteridge's Law of Headlines]] states that *"any headline ending with a question mark can be answered by the word 'no.'"* The headlines that Betteridge was poking fun at are quintessential examples of JAQ: tabloid titles like *"does the prince have a secret lover?"* or *"does this diet cause you to drop 20 pounds in a week?"* have clear implications without incurring any liability. Regardless of the outlet, journalists may want to publish a sensational story without surefire evidence, in which case phrasing a bombshell claim as a question in the headline is an easy technique to avoid libel suits whilst still conveying the exact same message to the reader, being that most readers don't make it past the headline. Marketing departments use JAQ frequently to cast doubt on any competing products or criticisms of their own product. A consumer may be asked *"do you know what is in your generic brand toothpaste?"* and suddenly start to feel uncomfortable about brushing their teeth, despite no claim technically having been made about the ingredients of generic toothpaste. The consumer needs an impetus to go through the trouble of changing their toothpaste-buying habits; the marketing team provides a reason not to use the product in the form of a concealed and likely false claim, then sells a solution. The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have put together campaigns to clear their image by continually casting doubt on scientific trends and research: the question of *"is the science really settled?"* is forever left open, in order to forever keep the more difficult question *"what do we do about it?"* at bay. In the alternative media landscape, JAQ is used to promote extremist views, wild conspiracy theories, and scientific superstitions to great effect. [[Populism|Populist political narratives,]] being inherently conspiratorial by virtue of their structure, are often supported by unverifiable claims - claims which benefit from deniability. Populist demagogues on the right, to whom the "elite" oppressor class is comprised of liberals, billionaires, and people of color, can use JAQ to support stolen election claims (*"why do they not want us to look into the voter rolls?"*), suggestions of manufactured dissent (*"who is funding these protests?"*)[^1], and racial essentialism (*"why is it that so many of these immigrants are committing crimes?"*). Left-wing populists, to whom the oppressors are billionaires, [[The Uniparty Myth|the uniparty]], and Israel, can use JAQ to make unfounded claims of corruption (*"why did this representative change their mind on Medicare for All after meeting with lobbyists?"*), accusations of the Democrats being controlled opposition (*"why do Democrats vote with Republicans?"*), and [[Zionist-Occupied Government (ZOG)|ZOG theories]] (*"why is AIPAC funding these candidates who don't support popular policy?"*). In the realm of science, questions such as *"why haven't they been willing to look into ivermectin?"* or *"do we know the long-term effects of these vaccines?"* exploded in popularity during COVID to the point where a majority of Republicans now view the COVID vaccine as unsafe, and a large minority are skeptical of other vaccines as well.[^2] ^fa0b4d One example that may be less immediately obvious, but fits the mold perfectly, is "office politics" passive aggression. Questions such as *"is that project still a priority for you?"* or *"do you know what happened to my lunch in the fridge?"* are designed with an implication: *you did something wrong.* Phrasing these accusations as a question, though it breeds resentment, also prevents the accuser from having to endure a difficult confrontation in which they may even be in the wrong. [^1]: These questions can be and often are used as [[Dogwhistling|antisemitic dogwhistles,]] depending on who is asking them and how they are being framed. [^2]: According to KFF, 70% of self-identified MAGA Republicans, and 57% of non-MAGA Republicans, are "not too confident" or "not at all confident" in the safety of the COVID vaccine; 48% of MAGA Republicans and 26% of non-MAGA Republicans responded that they were similarly unconfident in flu vaccines. For more information, see the report: [MAGA Supporting Republicans Are Less Likely To Be Confident In The Safety Of Vaccines, Especially The COVID-19 Vaccine](https://www.kff.org/health-information-trust/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-maga-republicans-relationship-with-covid-19-vaccines/)