I think I know what the problems is with non-believers. Their definition of Pizzagate is different than ours. We need to formally define our definition of Pizzagate. (pizzagate)

submitted ago by anon123

After arguing with a non-believer today I realized his definition of Pizzagate is narrowed such that when someone says "Pizzagate is real", they mean there is 100% certainty a pedo ring involving high level government officials is running through Comet Ping Pong. I said not necessarily. Yes there could be that, but Pizzagate deals with any of: human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal arms dealing, contract killing, pedophilia, money laundering, selling classified information, treason, ect., and deals with: Clinton Foundation, Soros, Obama, Biden, other high level government officials. Is that our definition? What is your definition of Pizzagate?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

JeremiahSinclair ago

I think a key point is suspicion. I would define it as:

An investigation based on verified email leaks published by Wikileaks that numerous high-level government officials in both major political parties could be heavily involved in illegal activities ranging from child abuse and human trafficking to bribery and money laundering.

It's not remotely comprehensive but it's true, and doesn't smack of insanity, which is the entire design of the media definition. To make it sound as extreme as possible and make sure there's no implication whatsoever of nuance.

anon123 ago

So would you define yourself as a non denominational Pizzagate believer then?

JeremiahSinclair ago

haha no, but I think a certain kind of presentation makes the difference between a newcomer believing there's somthing to it vs. immediately discounting it as BS.