You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

garlicbulb ago

Please be consistent with "possible disinformation " flairs. You used one on https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2820112 and said "Not my job [to educate yourself on various subjects] And this isn't v/conspiracy. Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims." You post something yet apply no flair and yet no linked proof of claims. Bias

Vindicator ago

You post something yet apply no flair and yet no linked proof of claims. Bias

What are you talking about?

garlicbulb ago

You should know exactly what i am talking about. I will explain again for you. In another thread you flaired "possible disinfo" [ https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2820112] and said when you were asked to read more so that it did not strain your incredulity, "Not my job. And this isn't v/conspiracy. Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims." In this thread that you started, you even admit you were "not 100% confident in Shimatsu's reporting" and yet you offer no linked proof of claims in the article posted. You are therefore selective as to your applying rules, unless you flair your own thread with "possible disinfo" or you are biased.

Vindicator ago

Well, this article is a roundup enumerating the highlights of a 9-part series Shimatsu did over 2016, mostly based on research here in v/pizzagate. While he doesn't hyperlink to the sources of all the info he presents, he does cite them.

I am certainly willing to flair Shimatsu as possible disinfo if he is in fact pushing any. That's precisely why I raised the question when I linked the article. No one has made a case for that so far. That's why we discuss submission content as a community. Flairs can be added or changed at any time -- and we frequently do so as new material is added to a post through crowdsourced investigation.

garlicbulb ago

So this post breaks the rules on links but you bend them to suit as he cites them. The other article cites a book too but you flaired that as possible disinfo. One article you give the presumption of innocence the other you presume possibly guilty. I would not flair either or if you feel you have to flair both. However a fairer flair would be somethign liek "more researched needed" and explain into x and x and miss out perjorative "possible disinfo" flairs