RweSure ago

I don't think you've achieved your aim.

Snopes may have trouble saying what pizzagate is, but that is because the pizzagate theory has no coherence whatsoever. You already have to have bought into several parts of it for it to make sense. Here's an example. A voater just tried to explain it on UrbanBaby

what is pizza gate? »That's a great question. Pizzagate (now really known as Pedogate) is the theory developed on the internet by smart jobless millenials that much of DC is controlled through their sexual interest in children - this is a conspiracy that reaches from the Rothschilds to the Podestas to the Clintons, and in every other direction. If you go on the Pizzagate page of a website like Voat (Reddit without the globalist manipulation), you can read a lot of the amateur research being done - it sounds crazy, but once you start digging in, there is a lot there. The sweeps of child molestors during the first months of Trump's administration (which were not reported in the MSM) were likely in large part related to ongoing Pedogate investigations.

I, mean, it's just all over the map and this is someone who believes in the theory. You yourself spend two paragraphs on it and it's still not clear. You think they are too narrow, but you then try this

"Pizza" was indeed included into the term via having pizzeria Comet Ping Pong along in the online community investigations, but the investigations have actually been taking place for several decades (see for example "Pizza Connection", "Franklin Cover-up").

Several Decades? Good grief. Do you see why people don't believe this?

Those other crimes are completely separate people and completely separate evernts that have nothing to do with what Snopes is talking about. The Pizza Connection was the Italian mob selling heroin for goodness sakes. I can tell you a coherent view of the Pizza Connection in one sentence.
If Pizzagate indeed was going on for decades, Snopes would not have to struggle to define it. They would just refer to it.

Checking the archived version, I found NO SUCH CLAIM in the Reddit submission in question. There's no mention of "secret society of pedophiles", there's no mention that "Podesta e-mails' revealed" that.

This is a fairly accurate summary of the "3 minute summary" youtube video in the the Reddit post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9itWsqzFMVo

None of what was true? The original Reddit post in question does not claim that Mrs. Clinton and Alefantis had met, nor does it claim Alefantis selling or abusing children, neither does it claim he would be investigated by the law enforcement.

They are no longer just describing that single Reddit post, but the entire Pizzagate theory/discussion which would have developed in three weeks since that original post. The video does make the claim that Hillary has held fundraisers at Comet. (this is false as you should know.) If you click on the examples section in Snopes, it shows what they are responding to and links to the post you say they don't link to.

Hi, this is something I’ve been reading about a lot lately on Reddit and it’s really starting to annoy the crap out of me:

Have you heard about the “pizzagate” conspiracy theory?

It seems to be the easiest way to get pretty caught up is through this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5da0kp/comet_ping_pong_pizzagate_summary/

Now, there is obviously some weird stuff in there, but I really think these people are starting to go crazy!! One of the supposedly inappropriate pictures they pull from James Alefantis’ instagram is of a smiling girl with her hands taped down to a table. Yeah that’s weird but, can that not just be a really innocent game? Like just picking on a little kid? Claim that Alefantis was once in a relationship with Brock is not sourced either, making that an opinion of Snopes. Claim that Mr. Brock was a provocative right-wing journalist is not sourced either. Claim that he became an outspoken advocate for Mrs. Clinton follows the same line. WHAT KIND OF FACT CHECKING IS THIS, dear Snopes?

Alefantis was in a relationship with Brock. This is known. Not an opinion. David Brock was a right wing journalist and he did then switch and become an advocate for Hillary Clinton. This is widely known. David Brock was instrumental in the events that got Bill Clinton impeached. He then changed his politics and ran a pro Hillary Clinton political action committee this year. You want a source? Read David Brock's book https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51J6TG8P1PL.jpg

"At some point between 4 and 21 November 2016" is inaccurate. My check on archive limits the gap between 14 and 17 November, Read those two sentences again. Your "check" actually shows that claim is accurate, literally 100% mathmatically accurate. If you can't see that, you won't make the big league debunker rosters. Keep your day job.

anonOpenPress ago

You obviously have no idea what kind of a process a journalistic fact checking is, so please update yourself before coming up with posts like this. Still, you managed to catch me on two lines, which I'll update immediately:

  • Snopes didn't share an opinion when stating the relationship between Alefantis and Brock. They shared a claim. They didn't proof that claim, so it can't be stated as a fact solely by their fact checking article. I'll update with "claim" instead.
  • "At some point between 4 and 21 November 2016" is inaccurate. My interpretation on term "inaccurate" is "not correct or exact", and I found Snopes claim as not exact (too wide gap, while a narrower was easily available). Still, speaking with mathematical terms, you're right. I'll update with "not exact" instead.

ps. The Pizza Connection got its name for pizzerias used as money laundering fronts, among other rackets. You didn't pick the similarity regarding naming a scandal, neither the possibilty that being still the case also in pizzagate. Citizen journalism on child trafficking and abuse by officials have been going on since at least WW2, popping up as scandals with varying names every now and then. The reaction by the officials has mainly been trying to limit the scandal to a local level, like for example in the Franklin Cover-up (efforts to limit to Boys Town), and in pizzagate (efforts to limit to Washington D.C.)

ps2. I'm very interested on your goal of your post in general. You didn't write it to help the kids, did you?

RweSure ago

Actually my once wife worked as a fact checker. So, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the process.

Still, you managed to catch me on two lines,

Two lines? Fact check needed. What about Brock's change in politics?

Snopes didn't share an opinion when stating the relationship between Alefantis and Brock. They shared a claim. They didn't proof that claim, so it can't be stated as a fact solely by their fact checking article. I'll update with "claim" instead.

No. They shared a fact that is widely known, especially on VOAT. The fact that they shared is not germane to what they were debunking. Alefantis and Brock bought a house together at one point. Instead of updating with claim, you should take 30 seconds and find out this is very well known.

Do you think that when politifact checks something President Trump says, they have prove their claim that he is, in fact, the President? Or that he was married to Ivana Trump? No. These are known facts.

"At some point between 4 and 21 November 2016" is inaccurate. My interpretation on term "inaccurate" is "not correct or exact", and I found Snopes claim as not exact (too wide gap, while a narrower was easily available). Still, speaking with mathematical terms, you're right. I'll update with "not exact" instead.

The term you wanted instead of inaccurate is imprecise. It's still 100% accurate, so you shouldn't update, you should correct. If you were familiar with how journalistic fact checking works, by using those dates, they were telling you when they first looked at that page and when they first noticed it was deleted. They do not need more precision to be telling the truth.

You didn't pick the similarity regarding naming a scandal, neither the possibilty that being still the case also in pizzagate.

This sentence doesn't make sense. The Pizza Connection heroin case has nothing to do with Pizzagate, they are completely unconnected, it's silly to argue otherwise. If I steal a car today, that doesn't connect me to someone who stole a car 30 years ago.

ps2. I'm very interested on your goal of your post in general. You didn't write it to help the kids, did you?

Truth, Justice and the American way.
This board is not about helping children, in some cases, folks are targeting children and their families. And folks won't direct their energy to something that would do that, because they would rather believe in massive conspiracies.

anonOpenPress ago

If you know something about a fact checking process, you should already know that Snopes failed - and my goal was reached by showing that. Putting extra effort in sourcing their unsourced claims would only have made my already lengthy post longer, without further achievements (more likely just more confusing).

Ok Pizza Connection wasn't a good example regarding child sex, I picked it for showing there's been similarity in naming a scandal. I could have picked the Rotherham CSE Scandal, Penn State sex scandal, Britain's Soccer Sex Abuse Scandal or Catholic Church child abuse scandal. But the purpose, namely showing that the Snopes picked a too narrow perspective, was reached. Pizzagate is more than single, local, short time scandal.

btw globally there are 84 bishops or arc-bishops found involved, not a single day in jail for one of them, and more than 800 priests, few of them convicted

You want to keep arguing on terminology used re dates. Imprecise would be even better, yeah, but I did make my point already.

For the end, truth and facts doesn't always walk hand in hand. I too wish they did. And I do wish we can end this discussion, as it's already circling around words, dismissing the bigger truth ;)

ps. If you steal a car today, you ARE connected to the one who stole the car 30 years ago. You fall into the same category. So does pizzagate, category there being high profile persons involved in or covering up pedophilia. Personally, I do add money laundering as part of my investigations, as it's an indicator of corruption, and corruption is a must to enable child trafficking in its current global scale.

LostandFound ago

Nice post! Do the wikipedia article next, theres even circular references in their sourcing. Not sure if the point above is in reference to the time that r/pizzagate was deleted. I posted on its demise at 5pm ET on the 22nd of November so perhaps a max of 2-3 hours before is my best guess I was on it every chance I got.

anonOpenPress ago

I've never taken Wikipedia as a reliable source of anything (and they themselves make it clear Wikipedia shouldn't be used as one either). I do hate how inaccurate they are on describing pizzagate, but what they have there is only working against themselves in a long run.

The point wasn't about when Reddit ppizzagate sub was deleted, but when the source used by Snopes was deleted. That was submitted on a different sub "The_Donald"