Youtube Star dead, circumstances unknown (Accused Dan Schneider of pedophilia in 2014) (pizzagate)

submitted ago by NOMOCHOMO

Dillon the Hacker is a YouTuber. He's now apparently dead.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dillon-the-hacker-dead/

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

He's the first person who ever accused Dan Schneider of being a pedo on Video (2014)

https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZE

In what appears to be a fictional rant, Dillon repeatedly references Dan's Jewish Heritage. Claims he dated Ariana Grande before she was famous and personally heard stories of sex slavery and ritualized abuse of nickelodeon stars.

Archive this Video, YouTube could purge his account: https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZE

I still haven't made up my mind on this whole spectacle. Whether Dillon is dead or alive, his "death" can be used to bring more attention to Dan Schneider's pedo proclivity

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

EricKaliberhall ago

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Possible Disinformation flair is activated.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Nothing in my post is possible disinfo.

My post covers both possibilities (hoax/real), so nobody can accuse me of later spreading a false narrative

I am reposting MSM news stories that mention online speculation about his death being a hoax

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/tragedy-mystery-over-dillon-hackers-19036892

The official narrative is no details have emerged regarding his death. Thus, it is a developing story.

@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed is this "possible disinfo" flair warranted?

Multiple MSM sites say it may be a hoax. The accusations of it being a "troll/hoax" are a necessary to fully encompass the story.

Flairing the post as "possible disinfo" (when I dont commit to either narrative) actually keeps people from reading it and considering if it is disinfo or not.

think- ago

Then you should have chosen another headline. Your headline says 'Youtube Star dead'. And yes, headlines need to be accurate, or they will get flaired.

NOMOCHOMO ago

all msm is reporting him dead.

If I were to post a different headline, people would claim I'm spreading disinfo by claiming it's a hoax.

Crensch ago

Youtube Star dead

The above is a factual claim.

Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.

It very obviously isn't common knowledge if:

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Therefore, I'm flagging this per rule 2. @EricKaliberhall @think- @Vindicator

NOMOCHOMO ago

So if a story is developing, it cannot be reported on here until it is empirical/common knowledge?

I provide a source because it isn't common knowledge...yet my own doubt of the truthfulness of the MSM story invalidates it as empirical evidence?

wtf are you even saying?

Crensch ago

So if a story is developing, it cannot be reported on here until it is empirical/common knowledge?

Sounds like you're having trouble understanding the rules.

I provide a source https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dillon-the-hacker-dead/ because it isn't common knowledge...

You provide that source but admit yourself that nobody knows exactly what happened. Meaning your source didn't say that. Meaning you just posted a link that didn't verify your claim.

yet my own doubt of the truthfulness of the MSM story invalidates it as empirical evidence per pizzagate rules?

You made the claim.

You make the claim, you support it.

"Youtube Star dead"

Except we all know you can't support it, because by your own admission, nobody knows what happened.

wtf are you even saying?

Why is such a simple thing so difficult for you to grasp?

NOMOCHOMO ago

(((You provide that source but admit yourself that nobody knows exactly what happened. Meaning your source didn't say that. Meaning you just posted a link that didn't verify your claim.)))

My own doubt doesn't invalidate the claim the article is making.

The article I linked is titled:

"Dillon the Hacker Dead"

That article uses the statements of other Youtubers who had relationships with Dillon to verify the claims including PewdiePie & BGKumbi

They got multiple confirmations which together become the empirical basis for the article.

Crensch ago

My own doubt doesn't invalidate the claim the article is making.

You made the post. You submitted the text. The claim is yours to defend.

The article I linked is titled:

"Dillon the Hacker Dead"

So?

Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean you're not responsible for supporting it.

That article uses the statements of other Youtubers who had relationships with Dillon to verify the claims including PewdiePie & BGKumbi

So... lots of anecdotal evidence. Do you know why anecdotes aren't accepted as evidence for most things?

They got multiple confirmations which together become the empirical basis for the article.

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Empirical, but unconfirmed.

Edit: Speculation of death/hoax is in my original link. Why are Mods trying to remove this post?

You're really quite stupid, aren't you?

Re-post without stating as a fact that he's dead when you cannot confirm it with anyone but "people who are close to him" if you cannot confirm it.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.

v.s.

Empirical, but unconfirmed

where is "confirmed" or "unconfirmed" in the official submission rules?

@shewhomustbeobeyed @vindicator

Crensch ago

EACH factual claim

Youtube Star dead

So any link referencing the subject but not confirming the claim is acceptable, even when the user admits that the claims is unconfirmed?

NOMOCHOMO ago

the link confirms the claim with the statements of 3 individuals who were involved with the "deceased"

my own caution has no bearing on the empirical claims

Crensch ago

the link confirms the claim with the statements of 3 individuals who were involved with the "deceased"

That's not your claim. Your claim was not "3 individuals claim youtuber is deceased" it is "Youtube star dead".

Your backpedaling has no bearing on your burden of proof.

NOMOCHOMO ago

My title is "YouTube Star Dead, circumstances unknown..."

My title is based directly on the vast majority of Mainstream Media Articles which themeselves claim "Dillon the Hacker is Dead"

Not only did I qualify my title with "circumstances unknown" I urged caution in the first line of my post.

Dillon the Hacker is a YouTuber. He's now apparently dead....But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll.

W/in the reporting, the confusion is addressed, but finalizes with the conclusion that the death is real. Hence the Editorial Staff approving the title.

You're shifting the standard of proof from "empirical" to "confirmed". Such a standard is NOT FOUND in submission guidelines.

you still have not clarified as to what "confirmation" would reverse your flair. Death Cert?

@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed

Crensch ago

Let me give you an example:

"HILLARY CLINTON IS IN JAIL"

People close to Hillary made this statement; here's a link.

Nobody knows what happened.

That's what you're saying should be allowed here.

QanadaHere ago

That would make sense if Hillary was not confirmed to be in jail. But in this case Dillon is confirmed dead. Pointing out that the article points out that online commenters think this is a troll does not negate the FACT the Dillon is DEAD. Get off your high horse Rabbi.

Crensch ago

But in this case Dillon is confirmed dead.

No. At the time of my writing the above comments, op had not provided a source confirming his death. Op admitted that all he had was hearsay from some friends.

Arguing as you are after the fact is dishonest.

NOMOCHOMO ago

And you're claiming you removed the flair because I "provided a source confirming the death"

By your absurd standard, the obituary is also hearsay from his family.

You're utterly full of shit.

His friends would lie but his family wouldn't?

Crensch ago

You don't know the difference between an obituary and a couple of friends saying something?

NOMOCHOMO ago

both are hearsay

Crensch ago

Okay, now go with the frequency of obituaries being wrong or jokes versus someone just saying something and collaborating with another person to say the same thing.

NOMOCHOMO ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries

...idk...frequent enough to have an extensive wikipedia page and be the basis of a famous quotation attributed to Mark Twain

a big enough blow to your "confirmation" standard to make it useless and arbitrary

Crensch ago

Cool. Then you admit your original link wasn't a source for your factual claim.

And now you are trying to argue that your edited link is also not a source for that claim.

@vindicator

NOMOCHOMO ago

sigh.

Quote it back to me bitch

you're spinning in circles

Crensch ago

Someone smarter than you would see exactly what happened here.

Let me walk you through it.

Do you agree that a couple of friends lying about someone dying happens a lot more often than obituaries being false?

NOMOCHOMO ago

we're done dummy. Remove the post if you've won.