914
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
914 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4577 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Did they? It's not a bad introduction but voat had much better documentation.
Again? Let's discuss this one instead.
The photo is not illegal, but it is suspicious, especially when combined with Alefantis' other posts.
See. You have to add in and highlight "by itself".
4chan didn't make him post suggestive comments or host suspicious files on his website.
You have failed to make this argument clearly.
So one item labeled a waste of time allows you to disregard the rest. This is a repeat of the "no basement=debunked" argument.
Pizzagate debunkers are just as illogical as Pizzagate true believers.
I'm not talking about another photo. You have a mountain of evidence. Please edit out any trash designed to waste time. That picture is a pretty clear litmus test. I'm not stupid enough to be scared of that photo. If you think I am, this will not go anywhere.
Then you aren't going to debunk them.
If you had been able to debunk pizzagate this step would not be necessary.
Sadly I think I agree.
I'm not really interested in measuring how stupid you are.
Then what are you even doing here? Honestly. You asked if my favorite podcast had a pizzagate episode.
I said, i don't think so. I'll ask others. I don't like talking about pizzagate because every claim is dumb. I said:
None of that has changed. The more I say, the more you shift and want me to look elsewhere. It's clear to me that anyone who could read that doc and not be embarrassed that they are trying to spook you with that picture, is not worth engaging with.
You picked out me saying "no victims coming forward". You know there's still not any, right? No matter how many different things you tell me. You called it a "bad argument". I'm not here to argue. You brought this shit up. It's not an argument. It's a fact. You can keep claiming not to make an claims. But facts are facts. Calling them "arguments" makes them sound like they can be "bad". Nope. I said a fact, and you took personally.
So you link some homophobic shit. i don't want to read that. There's some horrible allegations that if some unhinged individual who has a fuzzy notion of epistemology reads, things could get and have gotten ugly.
Your lies are consequence free. Is there anyone (journalist, pundit,...) with a reputation to protect that says anything about this?
Can you show where I had expressed any desire to debunk this? This might be my first use of the word in this thread.
I said it's not interesting. I haven't seen any claim attached to anything concrete. Why would I engage? I'm not a witness.
The only document you have has claims that no one can be serious about. I'm asking you to remove those. You're just wasting my time.
Yes. Thanks for that. Sincerely.
A lazy, blanket statement leading to this lengthy thread.
It's also interesting how claims that it was debunked dissolve when examined.
I linked to some evidence. It's hard to do so now that search engines have been scrubbed and voat has died.
Because the claims are not impossible, or even unlikely.
At the beginning I gave you the NYT and a steemit link with additional evidence. Nothing has shifted.
I didn't write it. There are not a lot of other options that search engines index. Just view the pictures if the text offends you.
All the linked evidence is factual. I've not drawn any conclusions. Not sure what I could have lied about.
This was the closest
Whenever you state that every pizzagate claim is dumb.
Ok. I'll remove everything from that document except for this
No one will touch this with a 10-foot pole. People that the pizzagaters victimized have been hurt, and some of the worst offenders of the conspiracy theory were arrested. No one will put a stake on this.
All the people that used to talk about this have disappeared. There once was a rush when people were talking about that document. Adding new threads. Making connections. This was going to be it. But nothing came.
I believe you may be chasing a high that was at its peak when it looked like pieces were coming together.
Everything fizzled. Now you're trying to get strangers worried about a list of files. It's not the same.
The emperor has no clothes here. No one else will put their reputation on the line.
I'm sure you have people in your life that you get along fine with. This is, provide no one brings this up. That has to feel isolating. Most people have moved on.
I was being honest. I'm not interested in pizzagate. But I have heard from so many people describing what it was like to have once believed it. And what it felt like when they were able to reconnect with people who pushed them away.
Obviously, I don't know you. You're fine to tell me I'm way off base. We're strangers here, but it's just food for irl-thought.
One crazy person has been jailed. No-one was hurt. All because the police failed to investigate.
Because there is nothing new to talk about. Although if someone had done a thorough debunking then that would be new information of interest.
This may be true for people searching the Internet and finding clues. Crowdsourced Sherlock Holmes. I only got interested when the crackdown happened, subreddits were closed and journalists silenced. Then claims of debunking popped up (usually without logical argument).
Debunking is much more interesting, scientific and rigorous than the actual conspiracies. James Randi, moon landings, aliens, 9/11. You learn a lot from a good debunk (hence my interest in your favourite podcast)
No, I'm trying to establish if it has been debunked. That there is no possibility of truth in the claims.
If you said pizzagate was unlikely, dubious or unconfirmed then I would agree and we wouldn't be having this exchange.
Neither do the debunkers following behind.
Did you ever used to post at 4chan?
No. Too difficult to follow conversations. My exposure has been 2nd hand by reddit or reformed text
i used to post on 4chan all the time. the hard to follow part was a feature. It let's you see only the good stuff in a way that's hard to explain, but I'll try.
The fun of 4chan is that everyone is full of shit. In fact, there posts about how much shit everyone else is full of. It's fun.
So how do you have fun on 4chan? It's easy. You lie. You're anonymous. It's consequence free.
It's been said that people like "bad jokes" because jokes split the room into two groups: those that get it and those that don't. A "bad joke" has a very forced punchline so that everyone gets the joke. There is no split in the room. Everyone hates the joke together.
A lie on 4chan splits the readership. Those that are ready to debunk anything. And those that "yes, and..."
The "bad lies" were no fun. Easy debunk, no one elaborating. The other lies were the fun ones.
The debunking group is the loudest, most numerous, and had tons of fun. There were infographics on how to tell if the user was pretending to be two different people ("samef--"). There were infographics on how to see photoshop artifacts. All kinds of good skeptical reasoning and debunking tools. The debunkers proved the liars lied.
The debunkers would share huge greentext png files of reformated text laying out how full of shit that all the liars are.
The other group had a different kind of fun. They found that if they see an obvious lie, they "yes, and...". That's an improv cliche that means you fully accept the OP's premise and develop it fuller yourself.
Wrestling fans would call it "kayfabe". Horror fiction on reddit has "nosleep" rules. It's in general, a willful supension of disbelief. These are "metarules" in a sense. They are rules saying it's against the rules to mention the rules.
Of course the yes-anders got debunked to hell and back. There are all kinds of greentext proving it.
But, the yes-anders shared greentext too. They had huge pngs full of undebunked truth. It was easy to do. It's all lies, and they are editing this huge png files. They just leave off an debunking.
Is it really that easy to just cut out the debunking? Wouldn't it just be easy to check?
HELL NO. That's the fucking point of 4chan.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to follow conversations. Everyone is only responding to what they came to see. There's no "I'll get back to that". You got to spew your shit while the shit is flying. Or you miss the fun.
This is where the debunkers always lose. There is just too much shit to debunk.
People reform the text into the png files I was mentioning. Put out a mountain of stuff. IGNORE ALL CONTRAPOINTS. And there are some people that believe them. When I said
I mean, they are the yes-anders. The people pretending to believe it because its fun to watch people try to debunk things when they never admit other, plausible explanations. I would have to say that the "99%" figure is an uneducated statement, so your guess is as good as mine.
But there are those that see this spread without any debunking because the debunking is lost. And anyone that tried was driven crazy by people pretending not to understand. So it's now an echo chamber of those that fell for it.
4chan was fun. I'm glad I quit.
The only time 4chan /pol caught my attention was when FBIanon posted about the Clinton foundation. I thought it was a fun LARP, then Bill Clinton has a clandestine airplane meeting with Loretta Lynch.
But given that nothing has happened to the Clinton foundation I would accept that FBIanon has been debunked.