For the first point, I haven't claimed anyone was a pedophile, just that there was some weird and suspicious stuff going on that people were going to spend a long time looking into. For the second, yes, I do think it's pretty weird when a child protection charity uses a pedo symbol in their logo. It's not just the pizza places, there are like 4 separate places on the same block, which is why it came to attention.
You... seem to be assuming that everyone thinks there's clear proof of pedos here. This is not the case.
Also, that NYT article was quite bad. More details can be found here: http://archive.is/X6KxW
You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.
I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...
Anyhow, my point would be to look at the actual facts in a story (if any) and totally filter out the opinion and predictions. The source of facts doesn't matter, what really matters is whether they're verifiable or not. Trying to rebut facts with opinions doesn't work. It just makes that person look dumb. This does require more actual thinking, though.
You mean the ones that are today on Slashdot as more fake news that the WaPo got hit by?:) Where the project listed "partners" that had never even heard of it? The clickbait sites that nobody actually seems to have believed?
You assume, without evidence, that people actually believe clickbait. No, what people actually believe is when people present evidence. When they do real investigations, which have all but stopped for budgetary reasons.
And no, this wasn't an understandable wrong opinion. That was horribly, badly wrong by someone who should have known better. Given that it tended to cover up CNN's own misdeeds, I'm not having an easy time writing that off as a mere mistake. As someone else put it, "false exculpatory statements are used for what?"
Ironically, thanks to the leaks we eventually found that they did have a report claiming that. Mind you--the report was later proven wrong--but they did have such a report.
Also the amount of crap they stored in Gmail that shouldn't have been makes me wonder just how long before Google takes over due to bad opsec.
Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.
You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).
Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.
You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And Gab.ai is the Twitter replacement.
Care to explain which emails were fake? Because the last time someone did that they got educated in DKIM hashes, learned that yes, the DKIM hashes cover the body of the message, learned that there were actually multiple signatures on some of them, learned that the relevant keys were not revoked (and can still be found in DNS... as well as my post history, just in case), and essentially all the arguments were proven false thanks to the non-repudiation that DKIM offers.
Or maybe you relied on when CNN lied to us to tell us it was illegal to read wikileaks, helping to hide how they rigged the debate?
Or you think it takes state-level intelligence to hack Podesta when he fell for a stupid spear phishing scam claiming some random IP allegedly in the Ukraine had hacked in and followed the bit.ly link to reset his Gmail password? Which is doubly-odd because Google never said anything about Russian hackers targetting anyone and they do actually warn targets about state-sponsored attacks whenever possible (usually this is China, though).
Also, we have a motive in that they rigged the debates with the DNC in DKIM-validated emails signed by both Hillary's mailserver and Google's with signatures that cover the body and body hash.
Yeah, I'm not clear on what he's saying, either. He appears to be expressing schadenfreude but it's ill-placed. I mean, they seem to be saying they caught the attack and stopped it. So one might think they actually caught the people responsible--how else would they have gotten to the attack ahead of time? But there's not much evidence given, so it's certainly fine to be skeptical of their identification of who did this. I'm also not clear on why he thinks it would be just for Russian people to lose their money as retaliation for something he alleges, without proof, that the Russian government engaged in, but who knows? It's about as confusing as saying on one hand that worries about starting another conflict with Russia, like our infamous conflict in Afghanistan and all the repercussions thereof, was unlikely while simultaneously advocating for military intervention in the Ukraine, but I've stopped expecting this to make sense.
> I remember that Rolling Stone story, it wasn't fake news but it was bad journalism.
How, exactly, do you distinguish those?
And if anything, doesn't that imply that "bad journalism" is more dangerous because people are more likely to trust it when it comes from a supposedly-reputable source?
I have, certainly more than someone who just read Snopes & NYT, which barely even attempt to touch the evidence found.
Anyhow, pizzagate came into prominence largely after Trump had already won, though it was suspected for some time before that. You're confusing it with #spiritcooking which was prior to the election. That was "debunked" primarily in that Podesta was not able to attend that session listed in the emails, but we already know that he was into some weird occult stuff from that selfie with the 14 and fish written on his hands which relates to the death of Osiris and the birth of Hecate. Spirit Cooking itself is something from Thelema, which was founded by Alister Crowley who is known as an associate/inspiration to L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) according to their biographies. There were other suspicions because part of the rite involves cutting the middle finger and we're able to see photos with that specific injury and even a mention of infections to said finger.
The people on pizzagate are emphatically NOT trying to make this a political thing as you'd see if you had even looked at the sticky post on Voat's/v/pizzagate
Yes, Comet Ping Pong does have ping pong tables, but all the businesses on that street have logos that look suspiciously similar to known pedophile logos as can be seen in a doc released under FOIA by the FBI. You may be right that sometimes ping pong paddles are just that, but after all the creepy stuff they found on his instagram (not "random photos from around the web" as some put it...) he came under suspicion.
I don't know of any credible person claiming that he's definitely a pedophile, though. There are a lot of things that look really suspicious and the public is going to scrutinize him no matter what we do, though.
The fake news thing is just the MSM realizing that we're starting to ignore it. I turn to people who present identifiable facts. I completely ignore your opinions and predictions (except that I can use the latter to grade your insight or lack thereof). No verifiable facts? Then I don't seriously give a crap what you just said. You link to some random clickbait blogs nobody ever heard of as if we somehow know who is clicking on it or as if liberals won't click clickbait saying bad things about Hillary/Democrats.
It's a convenient label to stick on anything you don't like so as not to have to bother actually thinking about what was said. It's funny, because you don't understand what's going on, you don't understand why the world suddenly turned against you, and you still listen to the people who never saw it coming. Of course you'll invent reasons for that that involve other people being bad. I'm not quite sure yet if that's because you lack mirrors or you lack reflections.
I'm sure you can find some images that have more tenuous links, but it's an ongoing investigation and some of that is just people looking for connections, many of which will turn out to be dead ends. In fact, Voat has at least one item right now flaired "Dead End?"
Well no, I don't trust the NYT these days, but I still kind of expect it to show up in Google searches relatively more prominently than some truly obscure matters.
Especially when one sees this change. It's been quite effectively slid.
Slashdot Mirror
Another good rebuttal to the NYT article: http://archive.is/X6KxW
For the first point, I haven't claimed anyone was a pedophile, just that there was some weird and suspicious stuff going on that people were going to spend a long time looking into. For the second, yes, I do think it's pretty weird when a child protection charity uses a pedo symbol in their logo. It's not just the pizza places, there are like 4 separate places on the same block, which is why it came to attention.
You... seem to be assuming that everyone thinks there's clear proof of pedos here. This is not the case.
Also, that NYT article was quite bad. More details can be found here: http://archive.is/X6KxW
I'd also like to point out, for the record, I have not accused any of these people of being a pedophile.
The worst I said was that they had questionable taste in art and friends, none of which is illegal.
That dude is an idiot. I'm not sure what he thought he would accomplish, but I'm glad nobody got hurt.
The people investigating aren't police. They're allowed to look at publicly available stuff on the web.
And no, a bunch of anonymous witnesses who somehow get death threats... even though nobody knows who they are... doesn't impress me much.
You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.
Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:
https://medium.com/@LoriHandrahan2/daniel-rosen-s-arrest-1f7befb1762c#.sa25w4uo3
I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...
Also, what about CNN interviewing its own cameraman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_W5cDjy3uU
Or editing what people said to convey the opposite message?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA
Are these all accidents?
Anyhow, my point would be to look at the actual facts in a story (if any) and totally filter out the opinion and predictions. The source of facts doesn't matter, what really matters is whether they're verifiable or not. Trying to rebut facts with opinions doesn't work. It just makes that person look dumb. This does require more actual thinking, though.
You mean the ones that are today on Slashdot as more fake news that the WaPo got hit by? :) Where the project listed "partners" that had never even heard of it? The clickbait sites that nobody actually seems to have believed?
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/12/04/0050250/are-we-seeing-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda
You assume, without evidence, that people actually believe clickbait. No, what people actually believe is when people present evidence. When they do real investigations, which have all but stopped for budgetary reasons.
And no, this wasn't an understandable wrong opinion. That was horribly, badly wrong by someone who should have known better. Given that it tended to cover up CNN's own misdeeds, I'm not having an easy time writing that off as a mere mistake. As someone else put it, "false exculpatory statements are used for what?"
Ironically, thanks to the leaks we eventually found that they did have a report claiming that. Mind you--the report was later proven wrong--but they did have such a report.
Also the amount of crap they stored in Gmail that shouldn't have been makes me wonder just how long before Google takes over due to bad opsec.
Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.
You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).
Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.
You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And Gab.ai is the Twitter replacement.
Care to explain which emails were fake? Because the last time someone did that they got educated in DKIM hashes, learned that yes, the DKIM hashes cover the body of the message, learned that there were actually multiple signatures on some of them, learned that the relevant keys were not revoked (and can still be found in DNS... as well as my post history, just in case), and essentially all the arguments were proven false thanks to the non-repudiation that DKIM offers.
Or maybe you relied on when CNN lied to us to tell us it was illegal to read wikileaks, helping to hide how they rigged the debate?
Or you think it takes state-level intelligence to hack Podesta when he fell for a stupid spear phishing scam claiming some random IP allegedly in the Ukraine had hacked in and followed the bit.ly link to reset his Gmail password? Which is doubly-odd because Google never said anything about Russian hackers targetting anyone and they do actually warn targets about state-sponsored attacks whenever possible (usually this is China, though).
So when CNN has a lawyer employed by them tell us false statements about the law, what does that count as?
Chris Cuomo on CNN -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
An explanation of how badly wrong he is:
https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/
Chris' bio on Wikipedia showing he's a licensed attorney:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Cuomo&oldid=752709245
Also, we have a motive in that they rigged the debates with the DNC in DKIM-validated emails signed by both Hillary's mailserver and Google's with signatures that cover the body and body hash.
Yeah, I'm not clear on what he's saying, either. He appears to be expressing schadenfreude but it's ill-placed. I mean, they seem to be saying they caught the attack and stopped it. So one might think they actually caught the people responsible--how else would they have gotten to the attack ahead of time? But there's not much evidence given, so it's certainly fine to be skeptical of their identification of who did this. I'm also not clear on why he thinks it would be just for Russian people to lose their money as retaliation for something he alleges, without proof, that the Russian government engaged in, but who knows? It's about as confusing as saying on one hand that worries about starting another conflict with Russia, like our infamous conflict in Afghanistan and all the repercussions thereof, was unlikely while simultaneously advocating for military intervention in the Ukraine, but I've stopped expecting this to make sense.
> I remember that Rolling Stone story, it wasn't fake news but it was bad journalism.
How, exactly, do you distinguish those?
And if anything, doesn't that imply that "bad journalism" is more dangerous because people are more likely to trust it when it comes from a supposedly-reputable source?
I have, certainly more than someone who just read Snopes & NYT, which barely even attempt to touch the evidence found.
Anyhow, pizzagate came into prominence largely after Trump had already won, though it was suspected for some time before that. You're confusing it with #spiritcooking which was prior to the election. That was "debunked" primarily in that Podesta was not able to attend that session listed in the emails, but we already know that he was into some weird occult stuff from that selfie with the 14 and fish written on his hands which relates to the death of Osiris and the birth of Hecate. Spirit Cooking itself is something from Thelema, which was founded by Alister Crowley who is known as an associate/inspiration to L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) according to their biographies. There were other suspicions because part of the rite involves cutting the middle finger and we're able to see photos with that specific injury and even a mention of infections to said finger.
The people on pizzagate are emphatically NOT trying to make this a political thing as you'd see if you had even looked at the sticky post on Voat's /v/pizzagate
Yes, Comet Ping Pong does have ping pong tables, but all the businesses on that street have logos that look suspiciously similar to known pedophile logos as can be seen in a doc released under FOIA by the FBI. You may be right that sometimes ping pong paddles are just that, but after all the creepy stuff they found on his instagram (not "random photos from around the web" as some put it...) he came under suspicion.
I don't know of any credible person claiming that he's definitely a pedophile, though. There are a lot of things that look really suspicious and the public is going to scrutinize him no matter what we do, though.
The fake news thing is just the MSM realizing that we're starting to ignore it. I turn to people who present identifiable facts. I completely ignore your opinions and predictions (except that I can use the latter to grade your insight or lack thereof). No verifiable facts? Then I don't seriously give a crap what you just said. You link to some random clickbait blogs nobody ever heard of as if we somehow know who is clicking on it or as if liberals won't click clickbait saying bad things about Hillary/Democrats.
It's a convenient label to stick on anything you don't like so as not to have to bother actually thinking about what was said. It's funny, because you don't understand what's going on, you don't understand why the world suddenly turned against you, and you still listen to the people who never saw it coming. Of course you'll invent reasons for that that involve other people being bad. I'm not quite sure yet if that's because you lack mirrors or you lack reflections.
I was talking about pizzagate.
You are correct that we've seen ample evidence of edits by /u/Spez, both direct admissions (both now and in past comments) and leaked admin logs.
I managed to find a rebuttal of the claims that the images were just sourced from random sites, though it's in response to the NYT not Snopes: http://www.renegadetribune.com/new-york-times-fact-checks-pizzagate/
IIRC, the NYT cited Snopes, though.
I'm sure you can find some images that have more tenuous links, but it's an ongoing investigation and some of that is just people looking for connections, many of which will turn out to be dead ends. In fact, Voat has at least one item right now flaired "Dead End?"
Well no, I don't trust the NYT these days, but I still kind of expect it to show up in Google searches relatively more prominently than some truly obscure matters.
Especially when one sees this change. It's been quite effectively slid.
Finally, here's some fact-checking of said NYT article: http://www.renegadetribune.com/new-york-times-fact-checks-pizzagate/
Maybe they'll do like Google and try to suppress videos like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zEibNcejA
Several accounts were punished for posting this before it hit the news, then Google relented.
So it hasn't appeared in the NYT?
You can't find it discussed on Scott Adam's blog?
There aren't multiple stories about shutting it down?
Oh... right.
That'd be great and all if not for the history of doxxing.
The sub was very much against people doing that kind of thing and told people not to.
I understand rules by how they're applied, not by how they're written.
I've heard of at least a few different variations on this, but this isn't exactly hard to replicate.
Just make some fresh Twitter accounts, tweet and report.
There's no such thing as "race" either, it's purely a social construct.