pizzagate creepy pedophile conspiracy

AZ_ said:

Though others, some on here, have argued this is the slippery slope to controlling the press. I'd argue it's preventing the fraud of the minds of American people, personally.

Click to expand...

ETA:

Well, this is actually an interesting discussion, but I'm not going any further with it in this thread.

Maximus said:

Ignoring the pizzagate thing for the moment, Podesta is evil. Check out Breitbart's last tweets before they killed him. He was on to Podesta right before he was killed. Podesta is a freak...undeniable. Probably a monster...hope he gets exposed once and for all.

Click to expand...

Just read them.

He seemed like a real fucking asshole.

The Human Q-Tip said:

It's a real problem.

I read a bunch of sources, get stuff in links, etc., so I occasionally get led to websites that I've never heard of. If there is a story that seems somewhat...sensational, I'll google it to see if it is reported anywhere more reputable. You have to apply common sense as well, and have a pretty healthy skepticism for anything that seems "too good/bad to be true".

One reason I've generally stayed out of this thread is that it just seems to be too much work to figure out what is true. And since it doesn't seem to be time critical, I'll let others do all the checking before forming an opinion.

The problem is that I don't think there's any systemic/centralized way to avoid the risk of "fake news" absent solutions that may raise issues of even greater concern. I mean, we've got Snopes, right? That is good at least as a starting point.

Click to expand...

snopes is an entity subject to bias and corruption and simply getting things wrong.

it is a good starting point, but runs the risk of what happened to legacy media.


i still cannot understand people defining certain news as credible and others not. defining the difference sure is important, and legacy is shady as fucking shit. its not as radical as what people are saying is fake news, but its just as lacking in integrity and unequivocally more powerful (for the time being_)

The Human Q-Tip said:

Well, I think it's both, though obviously I'm more concerned about the former. Also, at this point, I simply do not trust any entity to fairly police what is "fake", and what is not.

Click to expand...

Government-related entity?

No.

But I think Facebook/Twitter/etc. should consider taking steps to remove content from sites created to mislead and defraud the minds of people.

Their company is free to do as they please in this regard.

The Oi said:

Just read them.

He seemed like a real fucking asshole.

Click to expand...

he was. lol. he was on red eye a lot. he was funny though. different times, that persona was encouraged.

im assuming max knows the context of the breitbart quotes

David. said:

he was. lol. he was on red eye a lot. he was funny though. different times, that persona was encouraged.

im assuming max knows the context of the breitbart quotes

Click to expand...

Got it.

So are these guys pedophiles or not?

AZ_ said:

Government-related entity?

No.

But I think Facebook/Twitter/etc. should consider taking steps to remove content from sites created to mislead and defraud the minds of people.

Their company is free to do as they please in this regard.

Click to expand...

facebook and twitter have certain affiliations and interests and this is certainly a slippery slope. like theyre tied to the government, and a specific party if you want to make it a partisan issue. the government affiliation is much more the problem.

not to mention fucking memes are misleading.. fb ain't gonna survive without memes. you cant police every comment ever made, literally. and trying to do so is.. man thats bad news.

its more on the people for understanding how this shit works, media bias, fake stories, viral movements, and to not trust and to look to read between the lines and do their own research. and to become more desensitized to sensational stories and to err on the side of caution before judging or acting. there needs to be a discussion about this, and a strong one.

NOT just from legacy calling 'everyone who doesnt hvae a network, and not fox news' out as being fake news, but for everyone to understand that this stuff is written for a reason, whether it be to get ratings or sway opinions or out of malice against someone they dont like etc.




i certainly cant speak for everyone, and i could be projecting, but i think today people are much more cognacent of these issues than 3 years ago, starting with the zimmerman case.. unfrotunately, other dialogues (not commenting on validity) also erupted from the same case and seemed to have taken precedence.

the country has been divided and polarized so substantially that more people are subject to bias and believing anything that confirms this bias and their emotional investment (hatred) to whichever side of whatever stance they take on the several issues that have developed in recent years.






i hate that im getting into politics, but god is it riveting. what I do is read both sides, honestly. and rather than judging either negatively, and thats hard for me (and boobie you have the exact same type of personality as I do), i genuinely make as best an effotr i can to see the truth in it. and then the opposition. and then I make up my mind. The ending result, i think, is a less biased opinion and one that incorporates both sides of the argument.

The Oi said:

Got it.

So are these guys pedophiles or not?

Click to expand...

id like to say im not biased, but who the fuck knows.

the majority is likely bullshit. but the general rule of life is everything probably falls somewhere in the middle of extremes. so what is true and what not? whats likely and what isnt?


no, i dont think podesta is a pedophile.

no i dont think hillary had buttfuck all to do with this.

i think alefantis is someone to investigate. MAYBE for pedophilia.. what doesnt make sense to me is that he had no defense on a youtube video when confronted about his comments on instagram. I dont see rationale for not having an easy explanation. it coul d be his sense of humor though(and that just.. sounds bad when confronted about your comments, as a rebuttal). people joke about having houseboys and things that are shockingly politcally incorrect. that could be it.

obama had nothing to do with this.

biden, i think should be investigated. solely on the youtube videos I saw of his behavior.

it is unlikely this is a pedophilia ring, but almost all planets aligned to give enough question for people to research this.

i DO think, that cppp is likely leveraging their night shfit with their day shift... they are probably wildly successful in their faily oriented stuff and this funds their alternative artistic arm (from the art exhibitions, to more importantly, the gay bar that it obviously is at night).

the one question I have is about the change in shift. at dave n busters, you can get in at 16 years old and then just stay at the venue past the curfew hour. thats less of a problem at dave n busters. at cppp, it is a fact that it turned into a very alternative, sexualized type of place and I don tknow how the shift is handled on a day to day basis. there is likely a reasonable explaination; the one that comes to mind, is that probably1 100% of the families got their kids out of the place when the environment changed.

i think cppp has many reasons not to comment.. dotn fuel it, etc. But i think a big one is that there may be people in certain positions that dont want their identity to be matched with a gay bar. and I think that the response 'its not a pedo ring, its a just gay bar at night' just sounds bad.


lastly, when i went through all of the 'evidence', i suspected that there was prostituion or at least sex rooms. i've seen the walkthrough of the place (youtube video mentioned above) and it doesnt seem like there are private rooms. i dont understand then, the instagram posts that show private rooms. one, the first post in this thread, had a hastily put together poster that called it a boum boum room (no cells allowed). this could be a joke, i can see alefantis having a deviant sense of humor, it could be real. so Im not convinced either way on that one.

Big Sausage Pizza Gate.

David. said:

facebook and twitter have certain affiliations and interests and this is certainly a slippery slope.

not to mention fucking memes are misleading.. fb ain't gonna survive without memes. you cant police every comment ever made, literally. and trying to do so is.. man thats bad news.

its more on the people for understanding how this shit works, media bias, fake stories, viral movements, and to not trust and to look to read between the lines and do their own research. and to become more desensitized to sensational stories and to err on the side of caution before judging or acting.

i certainly cant speak for everyone, and i could be projecting, but i think today people are much more cognacent of these issues than 3 years ago, starting with the zimmerman case.. unfrotunately, other dialogues (not commenting on validity) also erupted from the same case and seemed to have taken precedence.

the country has been divided and polarized so substantially that more people are subject to bias and believing anything that confirms this bias and theyre emotional investment (hatred) to whichever side of whatever stance they take on the several issues that have developed in recent years.

Click to expand...

@Huber. wouldn't survive w/o meme's either, but that's an individual posting misleading nonsense.

The reason Facebook didn't execute these fake sites in the first place is that fake news is (unsurprisingly) slanted towards the conservative.

People aren't cognizant as much as they're desperately searching for content that backs their preconceived notions of what is right and wrong, but it doesn't give organizations the right to be libelous against certain groups or other individuals.

It would be quite easy to put the axe to these hoax sites that incite violence and willfully create fake articles.

If the government backed outlets hadn't been flooding the world with fake news for years now, more people might believe them when they try to discredit the alternatives.

OptimusPrime said:

If the government backed outlets hadn't been flooding the world with fake news for years now, more people might believe them when they try to discredit the alternatives.

Click to expand...

I wish more people wouldn't foolishly associate what CNN does with that of an actual fake news outlet.

It's fun to joke that CNN is "fake news," because they're terrible.


But that's not what fake news is, and more people should be intelligent enough to know the difference between what is completely fabricated and what is biased.

AZ_ said:

I wish more people wouldn't foolishly associate what CNN does with that of an actual fake news outlet.

It's fun to joke that CNN is "fake news," because they're terrible.


But that's not what fake news is, and more people should be intelligent enough to know the difference between what is completely fabricated and what is biased.

Click to expand...

..the results are the same?

You're manipulating people.

Give me the actual differences, meta Not just the details.

I won't insult your intelligence or tout my own in my post, either.

David. said:

..the results are the same?

You're manipulating people.

Click to expand...

No, the results are not the same.

One is completely fabricated, the other can be found to be factual, with the benefit of the doubt going to one side or the other.


If someone puts an add on craigslist that says "$20 to protest Mike Brown shooting," then writes a story entitled "Dems Posting Ads on Craigslist for Protestors," that is fraudulent.

If CNN covers Donald Trump using his own words and provides and interpretation of them based on their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is bias.


It's not even remotely the same thing.

AZ_ said:

No, the results are not the same.

One is completely fabricated, the other can be found to be factual, with the benefit of the doubt going to one side or the other.


If someone puts an add on craigslist that says "$20 to protest Mike Brown shooting," then writes a story entitled "Dems Posting Ads on Craigslist for Protestors," that is fraudulent.

If CNN covers Donald Trump using his own words and provides and interpretation of them based on their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is bias.


It's not even remotely the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm about to take a final, I really hope someone else has the time to address this in the way it deserves