While I'm grateful for you for putting so much effort in this, and I certainly thank you for that, I think it's unfortunate and dangerous that you dedicated 6 pages (almost 10% of the entire book) to a Katy Perry video that isn't and cannot be confirmed to have anything to do with this. It's incredibly easy to discredit the entire investigation just based on this, and I think it would be in our best interest for you to remove that part entirely. Even as someone who doesn't doubt Pizzagate is real, I feel that the speculations around that music video are farfetched, and a good example of confirmation bias.
Could you please point to a source of that? I'm interested. I know many things have been debunked without widespread awareness in the community, such as the #hotard thing, or Kim Noble's artwork being connected to Comet Ping Pong.
As for #hotard, if you look at the picture again (as also found in OP's book), you can see that Alefantis and the other commenter are calling each other hotards. It's clear in the context if you read the conversation and don't only focus on the hashtag.
I'm not buying your argument that this is DEBUNKED. That is a big word to throw around and as a mod especially I am concerned that you would say this because if you eliminate posts on your asumption that it is "CLEAR" in the context, I think you are wrong to do so. Not only is it not completely clear, it certainly isn't proven. Debunked is too strong a word to use for 1 opinioin - yours.
I'd direct you to this thread where Alefantis has not made an appearance to explain what he was saying, and a whole lot of people seem to be asking and commenting about it - https://twitter.com/hashtag/hotard
Firstly, I can see you've found my other comment where I clarify my phrasing. The reason for me to opt for this instead of editing my original comment was accountability. I don't have anything to hide, so I simply explained why my phrasing was not a hundred percent accurate.
The #hotard thing being "debunked" is a conclusion I didn't come to on my own as your sarcastic personal attack suggests, but rather gradually internalized the idea after seeing it mentioned in the community a few times. Sadly I didn't keep track of all those mentions, but I remembered a comment thread here for example where the user explaining how the #hotard hashtag refers not to the infant but the two men got the most upvoats by far on this particular submission. What seems to confuse some people is that on the #hotard baby image that is in circulation there's a caption on the baby's face citing the definition of hotard, but if you examine that, it's pretty clear that the caption and the UrbanDictionary URL have been added by an early Pizzagate investigator to explain what the hashtag (also highlighted in editing) in the dialog between the men means. The URL even points to the Polish version of UrbanDictionary (pl.urbandictionary.com), the original researcher was probably browsing from Poland or through a Polish proxy/VPN/node at the time.
The fact that Alefantis is not responding to related questions on Twitter also isn't proof of anything. Imagine for a moment that he does, and he clears himself about his calling a baby a hotard. What happens next? It is immediately clear to everyone that every other allegation he didn't address is at the very least suspicious and possibly true.
Using my common sense, I agree it is unlikely they're referring to the baby in that context. It's way more interesting why Alefantis would post a baby picture, why scottfazzini would react with "I want one", why babies are a recurring theme on their Instagrams anyway, and so on. I don't personally believe we're right about all our assumptions, that doesn't mean I think we're wrong about all of them. Pizzagate is real, but so is confirmation bias.
Finally, me being a mod has nothing to do with anything, I remove submissions based on a checklist predefined by the community, and my mod activity is entirely public. Any one of you can check it out at any time, and you're encouraged to do so.
ok thanks for your reply. Not sarcastic, just pointed. Also not personal. I still think that this is not in the "Debunked" category, it is not clear, and so would be accurately put in a "Questioned" category and should not be called debunked. Being a mod obviously gives you power of deletion and flair and more weight to your comments, so it was appropriate for me to mention it. If you flair a comment "Debunked" because your personal common sense decides it is "clear" when itsn't necessarily so, that would be the harm.
Also after further looking at this book i agree with your original criticism - too many mispellings and problems to be a good primer. You are right about that.
I understand where you're coming from, thanks for making it clearer, and I will be the last to say that mods don't make mistakes because I know we do. I will say this though, I might use the word "debunked" in a casual comment (and even then I'll rephrase if I catch myself using it without merit), but I would require actual evidence with a source for flairing something as debunked. And I certainly encourage everyone to question others, especially mods, just like you did, the only thing I did not appreciate was the attitude. But I do admit I've made a mistake with the phrasing of my original comment here, and I will pay attention to that in the future.
view the rest of the comments →
wecanhelp ago
While I'm grateful for you for putting so much effort in this, and I certainly thank you for that, I think it's unfortunate and dangerous that you dedicated 6 pages (almost 10% of the entire book) to a Katy Perry video that isn't and cannot be confirmed to have anything to do with this. It's incredibly easy to discredit the entire investigation just based on this, and I think it would be in our best interest for you to remove that part entirely. Even as someone who doesn't doubt Pizzagate is real, I feel that the speculations around that music video are farfetched, and a good example of confirmation bias.
GenghisSean ago
I agree. The bit about the golden headless sculpture has been debunked as referencing that serial killer even though it is still disturbing.
wecanhelp ago
Could you please point to a source of that? I'm interested. I know many things have been debunked without widespread awareness in the community, such as the #hotard thing, or Kim Noble's artwork being connected to Comet Ping Pong.
GenghisSean ago
I didn't know the #hotard thing had been debunked. I'll have to look for the thead that talked about the artwork to make sure I'm not mistaken.
Edit: I found it. This article says it's an artist's rendition of someone writhing violently in a psychotic fit. sauce
wecanhelp ago
Thank you, very interesting source.
As for #hotard, if you look at the picture again (as also found in OP's book), you can see that Alefantis and the other commenter are calling each other hotards. It's clear in the context if you read the conversation and don't only focus on the hashtag.
VieBleu ago
I'm not buying your argument that this is DEBUNKED. That is a big word to throw around and as a mod especially I am concerned that you would say this because if you eliminate posts on your asumption that it is "CLEAR" in the context, I think you are wrong to do so. Not only is it not completely clear, it certainly isn't proven. Debunked is too strong a word to use for 1 opinioin - yours.
I'd direct you to this thread where Alefantis has not made an appearance to explain what he was saying, and a whole lot of people seem to be asking and commenting about it - https://twitter.com/hashtag/hotard
wecanhelp ago
Firstly, I can see you've found my other comment where I clarify my phrasing. The reason for me to opt for this instead of editing my original comment was accountability. I don't have anything to hide, so I simply explained why my phrasing was not a hundred percent accurate.
The #hotard thing being "debunked" is a conclusion I didn't come to on my own as your sarcastic personal attack suggests, but rather gradually internalized the idea after seeing it mentioned in the community a few times. Sadly I didn't keep track of all those mentions, but I remembered a comment thread here for example where the user explaining how the #hotard hashtag refers not to the infant but the two men got the most upvoats by far on this particular submission. What seems to confuse some people is that on the #hotard baby image that is in circulation there's a caption on the baby's face citing the definition of hotard, but if you examine that, it's pretty clear that the caption and the UrbanDictionary URL have been added by an early Pizzagate investigator to explain what the hashtag (also highlighted in editing) in the dialog between the men means. The URL even points to the Polish version of UrbanDictionary (pl.urbandictionary.com), the original researcher was probably browsing from Poland or through a Polish proxy/VPN/node at the time.
The fact that Alefantis is not responding to related questions on Twitter also isn't proof of anything. Imagine for a moment that he does, and he clears himself about his calling a baby a hotard. What happens next? It is immediately clear to everyone that every other allegation he didn't address is at the very least suspicious and possibly true.
Using my common sense, I agree it is unlikely they're referring to the baby in that context. It's way more interesting why Alefantis would post a baby picture, why scottfazzini would react with "I want one", why babies are a recurring theme on their Instagrams anyway, and so on. I don't personally believe we're right about all our assumptions, that doesn't mean I think we're wrong about all of them. Pizzagate is real, but so is confirmation bias.
Finally, me being a mod has nothing to do with anything, I remove submissions based on a checklist predefined by the community, and my mod activity is entirely public. Any one of you can check it out at any time, and you're encouraged to do so.
VieBleu ago
ok thanks for your reply. Not sarcastic, just pointed. Also not personal. I still think that this is not in the "Debunked" category, it is not clear, and so would be accurately put in a "Questioned" category and should not be called debunked. Being a mod obviously gives you power of deletion and flair and more weight to your comments, so it was appropriate for me to mention it. If you flair a comment "Debunked" because your personal common sense decides it is "clear" when itsn't necessarily so, that would be the harm.
Also after further looking at this book i agree with your original criticism - too many mispellings and problems to be a good primer. You are right about that.
wecanhelp ago
I understand where you're coming from, thanks for making it clearer, and I will be the last to say that mods don't make mistakes because I know we do. I will say this though, I might use the word "debunked" in a casual comment (and even then I'll rephrase if I catch myself using it without merit), but I would require actual evidence with a source for flairing something as debunked. And I certainly encourage everyone to question others, especially mods, just like you did, the only thing I did not appreciate was the attitude. But I do admit I've made a mistake with the phrasing of my original comment here, and I will pay attention to that in the future.
VieBleu ago
Cheers, mate. You sound like you are going to be a good mod, and that's gold.