Outsider here. Can someone post evidence to confirm that the questions are correct? Like, did Alefantis really call infants "retarded whores?" What was the context? Was it just an insult joke like channers make all the time?
Were there really ten pedophile rings busted in the past few weeks? I saw one in the headlines.
The whole list could use this kind of double-checking.
I wrote the text. It wasn't something I planned out or researched in depth. It was an angry comment on the Colbert situation I wrote in 10 minutes. I'm not a shill and I believe it had a positive effect on awareness. I started with the hotard thing because it is shocking which makes it more likely that people keep reading a long text.
I apologize if it's not perfect, wasn't supposed to go viral. I was just pissed off about Colbert.
I'm sorry if I was excessively paranoid. Things have been very shill-infested here in the recent days, and I think not all the shills are of the easy-to-spot variety. We are talking about people with plenty of money to pour on reputation management.
The "hotard" or "retarded whore" thing is the weakest piece of evidence in the entire investigation, well maybe second to the "fish 14" email that was completely taken out of context and debunked so hard it put a hole in the floor of the investigation. People need to stop deliberately damaging our credibility with this shit. Everyone makes mistakes but like don't start disseminating stuff to the masses without vetting it first wtf. Like what is the excuse after you are told if you are not controlled opposition. There is none.
Notice how the "hotards" question is the VERY FIRST QUESTION. Why do you think that is people. So it can get debunked right off the bat and then nobody that was neutral will bother with the rest. They were calling EACH OTHER hotards.
He used an image of a baby with a caption describing the word "Hotard" implying the whoever made the image with the caption is also referring to said child as a "Hotard" I don't think there is anyway to justify making something like that
I would think it's an acceptable question. I cannot think of a reason why a trans man whom owns a kid friendly pizza joint would have a pic of a baby dubbed "Hotard". It definitely gives a tip into the psych that the man is clearly deranged.
I agree with your conclusion about the hotards comment, but give me a break on this "controlled opposition". This was something that was spread throughout when it first came out. Why would it be first? Because it's older information that probably stuck int he person's head. Stop vilifying people like this. One of the main ways a movements die is by in-fighting, and the way you are acting is very harmful to the evidence-gathering movement of #PizzaGate.
I wrote the text. It wasn't something I planned out or researched in depth. It was an angry comment on the Colbert situation I wrote in 10 minutes. I'm not a shill and I believe it had a positive effect on awareness. I started with the hotard thing because it is shocking which makes it more likely that people keep reading a long text.
I apologize if it's not perfect, wasn't supposed to go viral. I was just pissed off about Colbert.
It's not an "excellent list" if it's something someone not that familiar with the subject matter came up with from the top of their head. I think the list being bad is intentional though. It's one thing to forget who said "hotard" first and entirely another to forget that the famous "hotard" was what they said. (I think they really meant the baby, but maybe there's some plausible deniability.) And, like I'm doing in this post, people aren't going to bother with the further questions, even though there are still many weak or erroneous questions left on the list.
I'd also like to remind everyone that Voat has a known problem with bots upvoting stuff that would never reach the front page normally. There is even a website that sells upvoats.
You need to keep in mind that this is a grassroots investigation. There are people who follow things much more closely and people who follow things much less closely. There are people who are much more skilled and people who are much less skilled. Just because someone posts some weak questions in your opinion, and 2 questions that are faulty, doesn't mean they are intending to hurt #PizzaGate. If I was intending to hurt #PizzaGate, coming up with a list of weak questions wouldn't be on my to-do list. You are being completely irrational, and you have absolutely no evidence that this was done to harm #PizzaGate. That's a problem.
There were a lot more than 2 "faulty" questions. Even if you think someone compiled the list honestly (I don't think so), a list that bad should not be promoted.
To hurt Pizzagate, coming up with weak questions would be exactly on your to-do list. You want to give the impression that Pizzagate is based on a whole lot of nothing. You can't do that if you let the community do its work organically. The evidence is too strong.
view the rest of the comments →
Arrvee ago
Outsider here. Can someone post evidence to confirm that the questions are correct? Like, did Alefantis really call infants "retarded whores?" What was the context? Was it just an insult joke like channers make all the time?
Were there really ten pedophile rings busted in the past few weeks? I saw one in the headlines.
The whole list could use this kind of double-checking.
darkofthemoon ago
The list is too bad for me to believe it's honest. They're trying to make it look like Pizzagate has no real evidence.
ki-yoshi ago
I wrote the text. It wasn't something I planned out or researched in depth. It was an angry comment on the Colbert situation I wrote in 10 minutes. I'm not a shill and I believe it had a positive effect on awareness. I started with the hotard thing because it is shocking which makes it more likely that people keep reading a long text.
I apologize if it's not perfect, wasn't supposed to go viral. I was just pissed off about Colbert.
darkofthemoon ago
I'm sorry if I was excessively paranoid. Things have been very shill-infested here in the recent days, and I think not all the shills are of the easy-to-spot variety. We are talking about people with plenty of money to pour on reputation management.
LostandFound ago
Yup just another strawman just made from wood this time, so it takes the wolf just a little bit longer to blow it down!
SheSaidDestroy ago
The "hotard" or "retarded whore" thing is the weakest piece of evidence in the entire investigation, well maybe second to the "fish 14" email that was completely taken out of context and debunked so hard it put a hole in the floor of the investigation. People need to stop deliberately damaging our credibility with this shit. Everyone makes mistakes but like don't start disseminating stuff to the masses without vetting it first wtf. Like what is the excuse after you are told if you are not controlled opposition. There is none.
Notice how the "hotards" question is the VERY FIRST QUESTION. Why do you think that is people. So it can get debunked right off the bat and then nobody that was neutral will bother with the rest. They were calling EACH OTHER hotards.
Jesus christ.
hopeforall ago
He used an image of a baby with a caption describing the word "Hotard" implying the whoever made the image with the caption is also referring to said child as a "Hotard" I don't think there is anyway to justify making something like that
Rydal ago
I would think it's an acceptable question. I cannot think of a reason why a trans man whom owns a kid friendly pizza joint would have a pic of a baby dubbed "Hotard". It definitely gives a tip into the psych that the man is clearly deranged.
atheist4thecause ago
I agree with your conclusion about the hotards comment, but give me a break on this "controlled opposition". This was something that was spread throughout when it first came out. Why would it be first? Because it's older information that probably stuck int he person's head. Stop vilifying people like this. One of the main ways a movements die is by in-fighting, and the way you are acting is very harmful to the evidence-gathering movement of #PizzaGate.
ki-yoshi ago
I wrote the text. It wasn't something I planned out or researched in depth. It was an angry comment on the Colbert situation I wrote in 10 minutes. I'm not a shill and I believe it had a positive effect on awareness. I started with the hotard thing because it is shocking which makes it more likely that people keep reading a long text.
I apologize if it's not perfect, wasn't supposed to go viral. I was just pissed off about Colbert.
atheist4thecause ago
Don't worry about it. He's just being a dick.
darkofthemoon ago
It's not an "excellent list" if it's something someone not that familiar with the subject matter came up with from the top of their head. I think the list being bad is intentional though. It's one thing to forget who said "hotard" first and entirely another to forget that the famous "hotard" was what they said. (I think they really meant the baby, but maybe there's some plausible deniability.) And, like I'm doing in this post, people aren't going to bother with the further questions, even though there are still many weak or erroneous questions left on the list.
I'd also like to remind everyone that Voat has a known problem with bots upvoting stuff that would never reach the front page normally. There is even a website that sells upvoats.
atheist4thecause ago
You need to keep in mind that this is a grassroots investigation. There are people who follow things much more closely and people who follow things much less closely. There are people who are much more skilled and people who are much less skilled. Just because someone posts some weak questions in your opinion, and 2 questions that are faulty, doesn't mean they are intending to hurt #PizzaGate. If I was intending to hurt #PizzaGate, coming up with a list of weak questions wouldn't be on my to-do list. You are being completely irrational, and you have absolutely no evidence that this was done to harm #PizzaGate. That's a problem.
darkofthemoon ago
There were a lot more than 2 "faulty" questions. Even if you think someone compiled the list honestly (I don't think so), a list that bad should not be promoted.
To hurt Pizzagate, coming up with weak questions would be exactly on your to-do list. You want to give the impression that Pizzagate is based on a whole lot of nothing. You can't do that if you let the community do its work organically. The evidence is too strong.