This Pizzeria Is Not a Child-Trafficking Site(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
This Pizzeria Is Not a Child-Trafficking Site
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/technology/fact-check-this-pizzeria-is-not-a-child-trafficking-site.html
191 comments
When I want to know which way the wind is blowing I take a trip down to 4chan. Not because they know anything about the outside world, but because there are many who frequent the site who have an almost intuitive understanding of how to manipulate the presentation of information on the internet for maximum effect. Why? No idea, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that the only way to keep your thread for vanishing into the realm of the overlooked and 404ed is to post just the right combination of words and pictures to draw the attention of hundreds of different brains. Adverse selection at its finest.
It's also a great place for motivated actors to pour gasoline on some minor embers and turn them into a wildfire, allowing an irrelevant minority to seem like a representative majority.
>When I want to know which way the wind is blowing I take a trip down to 4chan.
Meta: I love this sentence. Is there a term/understanding of how digital culture navigates all the shit we think and talk about online?
We know that reddit has a "reply archetype culture" that is unique to reddit, HN has its own, other sites have theirs - but between HN and Reddit - they basically have the best pulse on the understanding of how people reply to whatever info they are sharing/receiving...
If we climb a bit higher, who is the thought-leader in understanding the modes of and presentations of how humans communicate/participate/comment in a world where we have such extensive access to information and can comment/teach/interact/criticize/etc a VAST array of topics with SMEs in most areas and garner the research of tons of people on a single topic with just a few moments online?
Truly the information age - but do we have an agreed upon lexicon of how to describe such matters?
Meta: I love this sentence. Is there a term/understanding of how digital culture navigates all the shit we think and talk about online?
We know that reddit has a "reply archetype culture" that is unique to reddit, HN has its own, other sites have theirs - but between HN and Reddit - they basically have the best pulse on the understanding of how people reply to whatever info they are sharing/receiving...
If we climb a bit higher, who is the thought-leader in understanding the modes of and presentations of how humans communicate/participate/comment in a world where we have such extensive access to information and can comment/teach/interact/criticize/etc a VAST array of topics with SMEs in most areas and garner the research of tons of people on a single topic with just a few moments online?
Truly the information age - but do we have an agreed upon lexicon of how to describe such matters?
I came up with a phrase: "The internet litmus"
[deleted]
I'm kind of saddened and dismayed by the number of comments that need to be downvoted into oblivion in this thread. I really appreciate that Hacker News is a place where I can learn something from other points of view, and where even if I disagree with someone, a lot of times I will gain an appreciation for their way of thinking.
But now with a number of comments insinuating that somehow this story is invalid because it's reported by NYT, and NYT is the real fake news, is baffling and infuriating. I think the NYT may have some problems, but blithely and falsely reporting that a presidential candidate is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor isn't one of them.
But now with a number of comments insinuating that somehow this story is invalid because it's reported by NYT, and NYT is the real fake news, is baffling and infuriating. I think the NYT may have some problems, but blithely and falsely reporting that a presidential candidate is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor isn't one of them.
What the NYT gets wrong is that #pizzagate is an Internet phenomenon, not something from the "alt right".
The internet is basically slandering a certain network of people in DC but few really care because the whole network seems to benefit from rampant influence peddling. I mean we're talking about David Brock's former partner--he may be innocent, of course, but Brock is hardly a bystander in the internet wars.
I think it's a mistake to see these people only as victims--they're associated with pretty vicious propagandists, big power-brokers, and the like... Being the (brief) target of the hivemind almost has a poetic justice to it.
It will go away if they don't feed the trolls.
The internet is basically slandering a certain network of people in DC but few really care because the whole network seems to benefit from rampant influence peddling. I mean we're talking about David Brock's former partner--he may be innocent, of course, but Brock is hardly a bystander in the internet wars.
I think it's a mistake to see these people only as victims--they're associated with pretty vicious propagandists, big power-brokers, and the like... Being the (brief) target of the hivemind almost has a poetic justice to it.
It will go away if they don't feed the trolls.
No, you're wrong and the NYT is right. It's not "the internet" doing it, it is a specific political faction in an echo chamber reinforced forcing a particular ideological basis creating and magnifying a politically-motivated fantasy.
Well, as an anecdote, I have been following this since day one and I'm absolutely not a member of the alt-right (if you do a search, you'll find that I'm the first person to ever mention "pizzagate" on HN).
Not saying that I believe any of the claims about Alefantis (I just have a fascination with conspiracy theories), but defgeneric is correct IMO to say that this is not solely a product of the alt-right.
Not saying that I believe any of the claims about Alefantis (I just have a fascination with conspiracy theories), but defgeneric is correct IMO to say that this is not solely a product of the alt-right.
There's a difference between following it and committing the slander, and it's absolutely a politically-motivated faction, and not "the Internet" in a general sense, doing the latter.
What I'm telling you is that I, as someone who has observed this happening from the beginning, am under the impression that the people posting this stuff don't come from a single uniform ideology. It's not totally baseless speculation -- I read through people's post histories all the time to get a sense of who they are. Where's your evidence to the contrary?
EDIT: Here are the profiles of the reddit users that currently have the top 5 submissions on r/pizzagate (excluding one brand new throwaway account). I looked through them a bit, but you tell me.
https://www.reddit.com/user/JackeyWhip
https://www.reddit.com/user/Truth_Bomb_69
https://www.reddit.com/user/bloodfist45
https://www.reddit.com/user/conspExec
https://www.reddit.com/user/iamkats
The first user just posts about Dota all the time. The second has only a few posts. As far as I can see only the last user has posts in r/The_Donald and seems to fit the bill of being alt-right.
EDIT: Here are the profiles of the reddit users that currently have the top 5 submissions on r/pizzagate (excluding one brand new throwaway account). I looked through them a bit, but you tell me.
https://www.reddit.com/user/JackeyWhip
https://www.reddit.com/user/Truth_Bomb_69
https://www.reddit.com/user/bloodfist45
https://www.reddit.com/user/conspExec
https://www.reddit.com/user/iamkats
The first user just posts about Dota all the time. The second has only a few posts. As far as I can see only the last user has posts in r/The_Donald and seems to fit the bill of being alt-right.
It's true that it spun out of the right when the daily Podesta email dump was happening, but they quickly took on a life of their own. I watched it happen--the right wingers tolerated them to an extent because Wikileaks wasn't really yielding much and slandering Podesta and his network was a sort of substitute for that. But concerns about credibility were raised on the right as well. It took on a life of its own.
(I'm not myself on the right but watching it unfold this election was fascinating.)
(I'm not myself on the right but watching it unfold this election was fascinating.)
This particular story is reinforced in a particular (alt-right) echo chamber.
Other false stories are reinforced in other echo chambers, some of which - anti-vaxxers, for example - are considered left wing.
Other false stories are reinforced in other echo chambers, some of which - anti-vaxxers, for example - are considered left wing.
Pizzagate has a disturbing laywerlike blow-by-blow rebuttal
https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5ebh01/a_blowbyb...
I guess the comments about the new right being technocrats may be true.
I guess the comments about the new right being technocrats may be true.
Here's the archived thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161122173600/https://www.reddi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20161122173600/https://www.reddi...
That reddit group was just banned, 23 November, 00:01 UTC
Wow, I saw that this morning. I really wonder what effect it will have. For now the discussion will move to r/conspiracy, and possibly voat.co.
Will they ban r/conspiracy too? I'll delete my reddit account instantly and never visit the site again if they do.
Will they ban r/conspiracy too? I'll delete my reddit account instantly and never visit the site again if they do.
I guess the comments about the new right being technocrats may be true.
Why do you think the comments are representative of the "new right"? I don't know that they are not, but I haven't seen much evidence that they are.
My instinct --- based on the apparent assumptions of a universal morality and the horrified reactions to the 'provocative' art --- is that a sizable number of the posters are religious and socially conservative, traits I associate more with the "old right" than the "new right".
More generally, I don't think a "right"/"left" split is the right lens to view this with. What sort of insight do you think it provides?
Why do you think the comments are representative of the "new right"? I don't know that they are not, but I haven't seen much evidence that they are.
My instinct --- based on the apparent assumptions of a universal morality and the horrified reactions to the 'provocative' art --- is that a sizable number of the posters are religious and socially conservative, traits I associate more with the "old right" than the "new right".
More generally, I don't think a "right"/"left" split is the right lens to view this with. What sort of insight do you think it provides?
Stories like this tend to come with a brigade of new accounts and posters filling the threads with as much nonsense as possible almost as if it were a mandate they're following from elsewhere.
I can't be alone in thinking that every individual who participated in or retweeted or whatever that information ought to be personally financially and criminally liable for their actions. If not every person, then pick the nodes in the graph that have the highest fanout.
If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet, you have committed a crime, and you should be subject to both civil and criminal action.
You are responsible for the things you write online. This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre."
If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet, you have committed a crime, and you should be subject to both civil and criminal action.
You are responsible for the things you write online. This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre."
> This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre."
Eventually there's going to be either social or legal precedents which get set over this kind of thing.
Someone is probably going to have to get killed over this kind of thing. One of the True Believer nutjobs is going to do more than just phone up a death threat and will actually kill someone, or commit a mass-shooting over one of these.
I'd like to think that this will eventually become self-regulating and the issue is simply that the Internet hasn't been around long enough for society to learn to deal with it.
However, I fear I'm being too naive and that the fundamental problem is that humans on-average have pretty crappy bullshit filters. Since charming sociopaths have been able to take advantage of those flaws for thousands of years, I don't see that changing suddenly because the Internet appeared.
The result is likely to be that we're going to get laws that restrict free speech and attempt to regulate the damage that internet trolls can do.
Eventually there's going to be either social or legal precedents which get set over this kind of thing.
Someone is probably going to have to get killed over this kind of thing. One of the True Believer nutjobs is going to do more than just phone up a death threat and will actually kill someone, or commit a mass-shooting over one of these.
I'd like to think that this will eventually become self-regulating and the issue is simply that the Internet hasn't been around long enough for society to learn to deal with it.
However, I fear I'm being too naive and that the fundamental problem is that humans on-average have pretty crappy bullshit filters. Since charming sociopaths have been able to take advantage of those flaws for thousands of years, I don't see that changing suddenly because the Internet appeared.
The result is likely to be that we're going to get laws that restrict free speech and attempt to regulate the damage that internet trolls can do.
>If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet[...]
What you're missing here is that they genuinely believe it to be true. As incredible as that may seem to you and me, that is the reality of it.
I've actually been lurking in r/pizzagate since the start, watching in horror and fascination as people convince themselves of the most outrageous things. But they're convincing themselves, and they do actually believe.
What you're missing here is that they genuinely believe it to be true. As incredible as that may seem to you and me, that is the reality of it.
I've actually been lurking in r/pizzagate since the start, watching in horror and fascination as people convince themselves of the most outrageous things. But they're convincing themselves, and they do actually believe.
Can confirm they really do believe.
I've also been a lurker, and I thought it was a joke at the start--and it probably was--but watching it bootstrap itself was fascinating.
I've also been a lurker, and I thought it was a joke at the start--and it probably was--but watching it bootstrap itself was fascinating.
I have also been amused by all the delusional assertions on 4chan and r/pizzagate, and I feel sorry for anyone innocent caught up in this, but this whole thing would have never caught on if there weren't real connections between the Clintons and child sex offenders.
Bill Clinton really did ride on a child sex trafficker's private jet 26 times, and really went to his private island where underage girls have alleged that they were enslaved. It's also true that underaged-sexter Anthony Weiner's computer had all of Clinton's emails on it. It's true that the Podestas are close friends with Dennis Hastert and Tony mentioned post-conviction that he's "stayed in touch with denny Hastert [...] all these years". It's true that Hillary and Cheryl Mills emailed repeatedly back and forth about child trafficker Laura Silsby, with Mills referring to her only as "Laura", and that Bill Clinton traveled to Haiti and brokered a short prison term for Silsby and the release of the other "missionaries" involved.
So, while "pizzagate" in itself may be totally false, rumors like this would not exist if the US did not consistently invite human garbage into its highest political office.
Bill Clinton really did ride on a child sex trafficker's private jet 26 times, and really went to his private island where underage girls have alleged that they were enslaved. It's also true that underaged-sexter Anthony Weiner's computer had all of Clinton's emails on it. It's true that the Podestas are close friends with Dennis Hastert and Tony mentioned post-conviction that he's "stayed in touch with denny Hastert [...] all these years". It's true that Hillary and Cheryl Mills emailed repeatedly back and forth about child trafficker Laura Silsby, with Mills referring to her only as "Laura", and that Bill Clinton traveled to Haiti and brokered a short prison term for Silsby and the release of the other "missionaries" involved.
So, while "pizzagate" in itself may be totally false, rumors like this would not exist if the US did not consistently invite human garbage into its highest political office.
Speaking of Epstein and human garbage, I wonder why The_Donald, /pol/, never talk about what Trump has to say about Epstein :
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/ :
Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/ :
Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Yes, it's a sad time to be an American. For those that don't know, Trump has been sued over allegations of raping a 13 year old girl who worked for Epstein.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump...
Libel does not require that the writer knows what he is saying is false (though doing so will increase the amount of damages you can collect). You can successfully sue for libel by only showing that the statements made against you were false, and that you were damaged by them.
That...depends. In the U.S., under federal constitutional case law, if the matter either concerns a public figure or a matter of public concern, actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) is required.
The issue here would seem likely to meet the standard for public concern.
The issue here would seem likely to meet the standard for public concern.
There is an identifiable patient-zero (one or more). We have the tools to figure that out. Those individuals did not believe what they wrote.
> Those individuals did not believe what they wrote.
How do you know that?
How do you know that?
I don't. I would be willing to wager at 19:1 odds that a jury of my peers would agree with me if presented with the facts of how the story emerged on the internet that patient zero was knowingly publishing false information. I'm willing to make that bet because there are a very small number of ways such a story can get started, and I have beliefs about their relative likelihood.
Watching in horror… yet can't stop looking.
We need to target those with a financial incentive to lie. There are many unscrupulous people who gain financially by increasing the size of the consumer market of misinformation, and their source of revenue is advertising.
You can be. A well known construction firm owner (McAlpine) was accused on Twitter of (something, can't remember). It was libellous, and after winning in court his Lawyer simply downloaded all those who had retweeted, identified ten thousand or so of them and wrote them a letter each explaining they were personally liable and were going to get sued.
The effect was ... incredible.
The effect was ... incredible.
I think it incredibly dubious that anyone who retweeted could reasonably be held liable for sharing a story for several reasons.
That would be like holding the media responsible for merely reporting that someone said X, if it turns out X is libelous.
A dubious claim, indeed, but I can believe a lawyer would send such letters.
A dubious claim, indeed, but I can believe a lawyer would send such letters.
I think technically you have comitted a crime, 94 at least a sue-able offense. It's just really expensive to enforce.
Sadly, this actually is a Pedophile ring. When it is exposed, you will regret doubting the sincerity of those of us frantically trying to get the word out. Just google "pizzagate instagram" and see for yourself what the fuss is about.
Since the FBI seems to love investigating Hillary, and I mean Comey just can't get enough of that, don't you think it's a little odd that they haven't even touched this? Maybe, possibly, there's literally nothing there worth investigating?
The line between art and perversion depends entirely on the mindset of the audience. Is Anne Geddes a child pornographer? With the right spin, she could be. http://www.annegeddes.com/
Stop "frantically trying to get the word out" and call the FBI if you think this is so important.
Honestly, what you're going on about here is worrying on so many levels. It's like the parent busted at Wal-Mart for "pedophilia" simply because he was a proud parent that had taken a picture of their newborn taking a bath. This is something people have done for generations, but when framed the right way it can sound awfully sinister.
If they were actually running a pedophile ring don't you think this would be entirely on the darknet where actual pedophile sites live?
The line between art and perversion depends entirely on the mindset of the audience. Is Anne Geddes a child pornographer? With the right spin, she could be. http://www.annegeddes.com/
Stop "frantically trying to get the word out" and call the FBI if you think this is so important.
Honestly, what you're going on about here is worrying on so many levels. It's like the parent busted at Wal-Mart for "pedophilia" simply because he was a proud parent that had taken a picture of their newborn taking a bath. This is something people have done for generations, but when framed the right way it can sound awfully sinister.
If they were actually running a pedophile ring don't you think this would be entirely on the darknet where actual pedophile sites live?
Harassing and brigading isn't getting the word out, it's hysteria about a conspiracy theory.
It's a full blown moral panic and it isn't pretty. But it doesn't help when the NYT simply invents a stronger version of the story right off the bat, probably for effect:
> All of them alleged something that made Mr. Alefantis’s jaw drop: that Comet Ping Pong was the home base of a child abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton ...
I've heard of this story before, and I can't remember a version of it that had Hillary Clinton in that role.
I don't think making up facts for extra effect really helps debunk a story.
> All of them alleged something that made Mr. Alefantis’s jaw drop: that Comet Ping Pong was the home base of a child abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton ...
I've heard of this story before, and I can't remember a version of it that had Hillary Clinton in that role.
I don't think making up facts for extra effect really helps debunk a story.
This reminds me a lot of #SpiritCooking, which had a big effect on the election.
For a traditional-valued person who thinks that participating in #SpiritCooking performance art is immoral, it's not much of a stretch to believe that the participants would also abuse children.
For those of us who are familiar with liberal culture and gay culture, Tony Podesta's art and James Alefantis' instagram feed seems harmless. For people with more traditional values, it's incredibly weird and degenerate.
If you're curious to read more about the pizza/pedophile theory (which I think is nonsense, by the way), see reddit.com/r/pizzagate.
For a traditional-valued person who thinks that participating in #SpiritCooking performance art is immoral, it's not much of a stretch to believe that the participants would also abuse children.
For those of us who are familiar with liberal culture and gay culture, Tony Podesta's art and James Alefantis' instagram feed seems harmless. For people with more traditional values, it's incredibly weird and degenerate.
If you're curious to read more about the pizza/pedophile theory (which I think is nonsense, by the way), see reddit.com/r/pizzagate.
As I mentioned below, I've followed this from the beginning. I was reading the Podesta emails and following discussion in r/dncleaks when this stuff started popping up in there. I suppose it may have started on one of the chans first, I don't know. The "code words" list had the feel of an expert in the memetic arts.
Anyway, I think you're right, it was the art of Tony Podesta and Alefantis that triggered a lot of people over. There was that one article about Podesta's collection mentioning the art photos of naked teens in his house where they took glee in the fact they shocked guests. Having been around art people a lot, I certainly understand the desire to provoke. Sometimes people will get provoked. You get different reactions outside the bubble.
Anyway, I think you're right, it was the art of Tony Podesta and Alefantis that triggered a lot of people over. There was that one article about Podesta's collection mentioning the art photos of naked teens in his house where they took glee in the fact they shocked guests. Having been around art people a lot, I certainly understand the desire to provoke. Sometimes people will get provoked. You get different reactions outside the bubble.
I think this is the correct read. I also looked in as this story was forming, and found it to be more evidence that there's currently a 'cultural chasm' in America, with each side making false assumptions about 'what must follow' based on what they see of the other side.
Here's a non-art example that I thought was culturally interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_pi...
Jake Sullivan is going to New Haven for the day, and comments that he'll be "eating some pizza". Hillary Clinton chimes in and says "Have a slice for me!". So the question on Reddit is "WHO THE FUCK ACTUALLY CARES TO LET SOMEONE KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO EAT PIZZA..."?
And then a couple other people on Reddit answer, well, actually, New Haven is well known within certain circles for its excellent pizza, and actually it's fairly common for "hipsters" to "gush" about it with their friends. But I don't doubt that for many this sort of enthusiasm for the perfect slice is so foreign that "pedophilia" would in fact be a more believable explanation than "foodie".
Here's a non-art example that I thought was culturally interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_pi...
Jake Sullivan is going to New Haven for the day, and comments that he'll be "eating some pizza". Hillary Clinton chimes in and says "Have a slice for me!". So the question on Reddit is "WHO THE FUCK ACTUALLY CARES TO LET SOMEONE KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO EAT PIZZA..."?
And then a couple other people on Reddit answer, well, actually, New Haven is well known within certain circles for its excellent pizza, and actually it's fairly common for "hipsters" to "gush" about it with their friends. But I don't doubt that for many this sort of enthusiasm for the perfect slice is so foreign that "pedophilia" would in fact be a more believable explanation than "foodie".
I suspect the lack of religion and the sacred makes people glorify banal sensory experiences.
Also, the lack of a common culture leads to using the least common denominator, like pizza, when looking for a point of connection. This is of course very foreign to people who are still somewhat part of the organic culture of traditional America.
Also, the lack of a common culture leads to using the least common denominator, like pizza, when looking for a point of connection. This is of course very foreign to people who are still somewhat part of the organic culture of traditional America.
I'm originally from southern Ohio, Skyline Chili is a local favorite. I most certainly am guilty of telling people that I'm going to go get chili when I'm back visiting.
Between the left's nearly blind hatred of Trump and the right's nearly blind hatred of Clinton I have to wonder who or what benefits from such a divided populace.
Between the left's nearly blind hatred of Trump and the right's nearly blind hatred of Clinton I have to wonder who or what benefits from such a divided populace.
That is trivial equivocation. Trump and Hillary are in no sense equal.
Hillary: Yale Law grad, partner, First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State
Trump: born rich, businessman with 3500 lawsuits against him, settled fraud charges for $25M, 4 bankruptcies, misogynist, ...
These are not the same.
Yes, I'm on the left but my hatred of Trump is not blind. Nor is my admiration of Hillary (I voted for Bernie). Trump is an embarrassment to America and that division you correctly point out has been created over decades by right wing media.
Hillary: Yale Law grad, partner, First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State
Trump: born rich, businessman with 3500 lawsuits against him, settled fraud charges for $25M, 4 bankruptcies, misogynist, ...
These are not the same.
Yes, I'm on the left but my hatred of Trump is not blind. Nor is my admiration of Hillary (I voted for Bernie). Trump is an embarrassment to America and that division you correctly point out has been created over decades by right wing media.
When you know the ties between 4chan and child pornography you have to wonder at this manufactured outrage about "art photos of naked teens". And when user of 4chan project "cheese pizza" to child porn when it is only 4chan-speak, it seems totally disingenuous.
Trouble is, there is no smoking gun (at least yet) to suggest anything actually wrong.
But the optics just don't work out. Performance Art is almost always weird even for most liberal people. It appeals to a very small percentage of the world. As a politician, you don't want to be associated with that - at least not in public
But the optics just don't work out. Performance Art is almost always weird even for most liberal people. It appeals to a very small percentage of the world. As a politician, you don't want to be associated with that - at least not in public
> For people with more traditional values, it's incredibly weird and degenerate.
For people with "traditional values," anyone that is not "normal" is a "pervert" and once you've crossed the line into pervert territory anything that could qualify you as a pervert is equally acceptable. This is why you get people stating that transwomen/transmen are also pedophiles... every single one of them. Why? Being a transwoman or a transman makes you a pervert, and once you're a pervert you're equally likely to engage in anal sex as you are to rape a child (according to their logic) because perverts don't see any difference between the two.
For people with "traditional values," anyone that is not "normal" is a "pervert" and once you've crossed the line into pervert territory anything that could qualify you as a pervert is equally acceptable. This is why you get people stating that transwomen/transmen are also pedophiles... every single one of them. Why? Being a transwoman or a transman makes you a pervert, and once you're a pervert you're equally likely to engage in anal sex as you are to rape a child (according to their logic) because perverts don't see any difference between the two.
This is exactly why it has been so potent. I think there's a strong class element too.
Not that I frequently jump to Yelp when something hits big on the news, but this is the first time I've seen this "Active Cleanup Alert", currently in effect for the pizzeria:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx1p9w_UsAAaB0L.jpg
https://www.yelp.com/biz/comet-ping-pong-washington
I was just going to say, "Seems like this is new since that one dentist killed the famous lion", but I guess these alerts started at around that time: http://www.thesempost.com/yelp-adds-new-active-cleanup-alert...
Meanwhile, Google seems to be putting in little effort to block the brigading of its place reviews: http://i.imgur.com/e6uCqan.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx1p9w_UsAAaB0L.jpg
https://www.yelp.com/biz/comet-ping-pong-washington
I was just going to say, "Seems like this is new since that one dentist killed the famous lion", but I guess these alerts started at around that time: http://www.thesempost.com/yelp-adds-new-active-cleanup-alert...
Meanwhile, Google seems to be putting in little effort to block the brigading of its place reviews: http://i.imgur.com/e6uCqan.png
There are a number of factual errors with this article.
"He found dozens of made-up articles about Mrs. Clinton kidnapping, molesting and trafficking children in the restaurant’s back rooms."
There are no articles that claim Mrs. Clinton has been doing this. Not dozens - zero.
"While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington"
Yeah, and the Titanic was just a boat. Alefantis was named one of the Top 50 Influential People in Washington D.C. by GQ magazine. Because he is. The article mentions this later.
"was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her,"
This is highly unlikely. Not only has he visited the White House hundreds of times, he received a personally signed letter from Hillary Clinton for catering at a fundraiser at John Podesta's house. He displayed this letter on his Instagram, along with many images of children that raise plenty of red flags. Why not link to these and let readers decide for themselves?
"Amanda Kleinman, whose band, Heavy Breathing, has performed there several times, deleted her Twitter account after the abusive comments became overwhelming."
Perhaps the author could link to some of Amanda Kleinman's videos which contain single frame images of torture, famous pedophiles and child exploitation images?
"His customers include some high-powered locals, such as Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, whom Mr. Alefantis knows casually."
Casually? Then why are there photos of them together at functions at Comet Ping Pong? John Podesta's emails have conversations which are highly disturbing to the casual reader. Why not show us some examples to see what the fuss is?
At this stage, all evidence for there being a pedo ring operating out of Washington D.C (with Comet Ping Pong playing a major role) is only circumstantial. But there is a LOT of it, literally hundreds of data points.
"He found dozens of made-up articles about Mrs. Clinton kidnapping, molesting and trafficking children in the restaurant’s back rooms."
There are no articles that claim Mrs. Clinton has been doing this. Not dozens - zero.
"While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington"
Yeah, and the Titanic was just a boat. Alefantis was named one of the Top 50 Influential People in Washington D.C. by GQ magazine. Because he is. The article mentions this later.
"was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her,"
This is highly unlikely. Not only has he visited the White House hundreds of times, he received a personally signed letter from Hillary Clinton for catering at a fundraiser at John Podesta's house. He displayed this letter on his Instagram, along with many images of children that raise plenty of red flags. Why not link to these and let readers decide for themselves?
"Amanda Kleinman, whose band, Heavy Breathing, has performed there several times, deleted her Twitter account after the abusive comments became overwhelming."
Perhaps the author could link to some of Amanda Kleinman's videos which contain single frame images of torture, famous pedophiles and child exploitation images?
"His customers include some high-powered locals, such as Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, whom Mr. Alefantis knows casually."
Casually? Then why are there photos of them together at functions at Comet Ping Pong? John Podesta's emails have conversations which are highly disturbing to the casual reader. Why not show us some examples to see what the fuss is?
At this stage, all evidence for there being a pedo ring operating out of Washington D.C (with Comet Ping Pong playing a major role) is only circumstantial. But there is a LOT of it, literally hundreds of data points.
There are a number of factual errors with this article.
I agree completely with your complaints about the NYT article: it's terrible reporting, and essentially a PR release. Personally, I'm bothered most by the failure to mention that Alefantis is listed in GQ's Top 50 Influential People in DC, and the implication that he's a powerless pizza store owner. But I don't think the problem is that it's not "factual", rather it's being selective about which facts to mention so as to persuade the reader in a particular direction.
Why not link to these and let readers decide for themselves?
I'm pretty sure that the author believes that "nothing to see here" is the correct conclusion, and fears that the readers, not understanding the situation as well as she does, will reach the wrong conclusions. I'd guess the author has personal connections to some of the people involved, and is confident in her judgement that the accusations are false. This is essentially the definition of 'elitism', but the author's logic is likely correct.
At this stage, all evidence for there being a pedo ring operating out of Washington D.C (with Comet Ping Pong playing a major role) is only circumstantial. But there is a LOT of it, literally hundreds of data points.
Not only circumstantial, but really flimsy. While it might strike people as unfathomable that their government officials could actually be preoccupied with finding the best 'cheese pizza', this really isn't evidence that 'cheese pizza' equals 'child pornography'. One could argue that it's consistent with the behavior of a ring of pedophiles, but unless you've started with the conclusion that you are probably dealing with pedophiles, even 100 similar data points still don't add up to a likelihood that approaches the chance of a false positive.
So what's the solution? I have no idea.
I agree completely with your complaints about the NYT article: it's terrible reporting, and essentially a PR release. Personally, I'm bothered most by the failure to mention that Alefantis is listed in GQ's Top 50 Influential People in DC, and the implication that he's a powerless pizza store owner. But I don't think the problem is that it's not "factual", rather it's being selective about which facts to mention so as to persuade the reader in a particular direction.
Why not link to these and let readers decide for themselves?
I'm pretty sure that the author believes that "nothing to see here" is the correct conclusion, and fears that the readers, not understanding the situation as well as she does, will reach the wrong conclusions. I'd guess the author has personal connections to some of the people involved, and is confident in her judgement that the accusations are false. This is essentially the definition of 'elitism', but the author's logic is likely correct.
At this stage, all evidence for there being a pedo ring operating out of Washington D.C (with Comet Ping Pong playing a major role) is only circumstantial. But there is a LOT of it, literally hundreds of data points.
Not only circumstantial, but really flimsy. While it might strike people as unfathomable that their government officials could actually be preoccupied with finding the best 'cheese pizza', this really isn't evidence that 'cheese pizza' equals 'child pornography'. One could argue that it's consistent with the behavior of a ring of pedophiles, but unless you've started with the conclusion that you are probably dealing with pedophiles, even 100 similar data points still don't add up to a likelihood that approaches the chance of a false positive.
So what's the solution? I have no idea.
> but the author's logic is likely correct.
She was confident in her judgement that the UVA Rape On Campus story that disgraced Rolling Stone was true as well. It wasn't. Oops.
> Not only circumstantial, but really flimsy.
Decide for yourself then:
James Alefantis posts suggestive pictures of children on his Instagram AND He makes lewd comments about them AND Many of his friends do too AND Some of those friends are into weird things like making child-sized coffins AND There's FBI-confirmed pedophile codes and symbols everywhere AND Alefantis knows John Podesta WHO is into Spirit Cooking with Marina Abramovic AND Podesta hangs disturbing child abuse-style art on his wall AND He likes artists who produce disturbing images of abuse AND His emails have masonic images hidden in the attachments AS WELL AS Pictures of children with notes saying "Happy Birthday John" AND contacts of his mail him with messages promising "entertainment" from the young children in the pool AND He and his brother look EXACTLY like the photofits of two men who abducted Madeleine McCann in 2007 AND they were connected to the McCanns through a mutual friend who lived nearby AND ....
I haven't even started with Hillary yet.
> but unless you've started with the conclusion that you are probably dealing with pedophiles, even 100 similar data points still don't add up to a likelihood that approaches the chance of a false positive.
This is not statistics. It's deduction. Given all of these facts, which hypothesis best fits them?
She was confident in her judgement that the UVA Rape On Campus story that disgraced Rolling Stone was true as well. It wasn't. Oops.
> Not only circumstantial, but really flimsy.
Decide for yourself then:
James Alefantis posts suggestive pictures of children on his Instagram AND He makes lewd comments about them AND Many of his friends do too AND Some of those friends are into weird things like making child-sized coffins AND There's FBI-confirmed pedophile codes and symbols everywhere AND Alefantis knows John Podesta WHO is into Spirit Cooking with Marina Abramovic AND Podesta hangs disturbing child abuse-style art on his wall AND He likes artists who produce disturbing images of abuse AND His emails have masonic images hidden in the attachments AS WELL AS Pictures of children with notes saying "Happy Birthday John" AND contacts of his mail him with messages promising "entertainment" from the young children in the pool AND He and his brother look EXACTLY like the photofits of two men who abducted Madeleine McCann in 2007 AND they were connected to the McCanns through a mutual friend who lived nearby AND ....
I haven't even started with Hillary yet.
> but unless you've started with the conclusion that you are probably dealing with pedophiles, even 100 similar data points still don't add up to a likelihood that approaches the chance of a false positive.
This is not statistics. It's deduction. Given all of these facts, which hypothesis best fits them?
She was confident in her judgement that the UVA Rape On Campus story that disgraced Rolling Stone was true as well.
Then she was wrong there, and she could be wrong here too. But I think the greater commonality between the cases is that the "very difficult to believe events" turned out in the end to be false.
Decide for yourself then
I did. I read the thread, I watched the birthday video, and I read some of the suggestive emails (I even quoted one in a different comment here). I'm sure I've missed a lot, but my conclusion from the parts that I saw was that it's still extremely unlikely that Podesta is involved in pedophilia, and quite unlikely that any of the other named parties close to him are either.
This is not statistics. It's deduction. Given all of these facts, which hypothesis best fits them?
I think the most likely explanation is that the supposed points of evidence are misunderstandings due to massive cultural differences. In particular, I think the correlation between all the points of evidence you raise and the actual behavior of pedophiles is very low, and the conjunction of 100 such points is still overwhelmed by one's prior beliefs. Section 17 of Scott Alexander's recent article trying to explain why accusing Trump of being racist is counterproductive is relevant to this point: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
But we'll see. I could be wrong. I still have (barely) enough faith in the world to believe that if Reddit's interpretation is true, the truth will eventually come out.
Then she was wrong there, and she could be wrong here too. But I think the greater commonality between the cases is that the "very difficult to believe events" turned out in the end to be false.
Decide for yourself then
I did. I read the thread, I watched the birthday video, and I read some of the suggestive emails (I even quoted one in a different comment here). I'm sure I've missed a lot, but my conclusion from the parts that I saw was that it's still extremely unlikely that Podesta is involved in pedophilia, and quite unlikely that any of the other named parties close to him are either.
This is not statistics. It's deduction. Given all of these facts, which hypothesis best fits them?
I think the most likely explanation is that the supposed points of evidence are misunderstandings due to massive cultural differences. In particular, I think the correlation between all the points of evidence you raise and the actual behavior of pedophiles is very low, and the conjunction of 100 such points is still overwhelmed by one's prior beliefs. Section 17 of Scott Alexander's recent article trying to explain why accusing Trump of being racist is counterproductive is relevant to this point: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
But we'll see. I could be wrong. I still have (barely) enough faith in the world to believe that if Reddit's interpretation is true, the truth will eventually come out.
> But I think the greater commonality between the cases is that the "very difficult to believe events" turned out in the end to be false.
The cases have literally nothing to do with each other. That Cecilia Kang has authored falsehoods about both changes nothing about the facts of either.
> but my conclusion from the parts that I saw was that it's still extremely unlikely that Podesta is involved in pedophilia, and quite unlikely that any of the other named parties close to him are either.
It's easy to just scratch the surface and conclude that there's nothing to see here.
> I think the most likely explanation is that the supposed points of evidence are misunderstandings due to massive cultural differences. In particular, I think the correlation between all the points of evidence you raise and the actual behavior of pedophiles is very low, and the conjunction of 100 such points is still overwhelmed by one's prior beliefs.
Except that the pedophile ring theory explains every single data point perfectly. Your theory doesn't explain anything.
> I still have (barely) enough faith in the world to believe that if Reddit's interpretation is true, the truth will eventually come out.
I hoped I was wrong. I don't think I am :(
The cases have literally nothing to do with each other. That Cecilia Kang has authored falsehoods about both changes nothing about the facts of either.
> but my conclusion from the parts that I saw was that it's still extremely unlikely that Podesta is involved in pedophilia, and quite unlikely that any of the other named parties close to him are either.
It's easy to just scratch the surface and conclude that there's nothing to see here.
> I think the most likely explanation is that the supposed points of evidence are misunderstandings due to massive cultural differences. In particular, I think the correlation between all the points of evidence you raise and the actual behavior of pedophiles is very low, and the conjunction of 100 such points is still overwhelmed by one's prior beliefs.
Except that the pedophile ring theory explains every single data point perfectly. Your theory doesn't explain anything.
> I still have (barely) enough faith in the world to believe that if Reddit's interpretation is true, the truth will eventually come out.
I hoped I was wrong. I don't think I am :(
You know, ordinary people may have massive cultural differences with pedophiles.
Jokes aside, anything can be explained by massive cultural differences. Taking more wives, marrying underaged girls can be considered civilized so long as there are enough people backing it up.
Jokes aside, anything can be explained by massive cultural differences. Taking more wives, marrying underaged girls can be considered civilized so long as there are enough people backing it up.
The fake news thing is really starting to dampen my faith in democracy. There's just no way to counteract it in the age of viral media. It's the DDoS of the political sphere. And it's a national security threat since countries can use it to undermine each other's elections. If democracy doesn't work maybe the best we can hope for is a competent benevolent autocratic state. Maybe China is the right model after all.
Sounds a bit melodramatic. Maybe you're having a hard time understanding why your country voted for someone with whom you have fundamental disagreements?
I'm perfectly capapable of considering the pros and cons of a candidate and making a judgement about their ability to lead the country in a direction I think is desired thank you. It's amazing to me that everyone living in a "coastal citidel" is still so absolutely flabbergasted that 2016 went to the Republicans.
The people that voted for Trump are not like you. If everyone wants to hold on to the narrative that they were a bunch of racicists motivated by fake Facebook posts or Russia then so be it. That type of thinking lost 2016 and it will lose 2020 also.
I'm perfectly capapable of considering the pros and cons of a candidate and making a judgement about their ability to lead the country in a direction I think is desired thank you. It's amazing to me that everyone living in a "coastal citidel" is still so absolutely flabbergasted that 2016 went to the Republicans.
The people that voted for Trump are not like you. If everyone wants to hold on to the narrative that they were a bunch of racicists motivated by fake Facebook posts or Russia then so be it. That type of thinking lost 2016 and it will lose 2020 also.
It's not a partisan complaint. I've seen plenty of fake stories circulating on the left too. Though the conspiracy theories seem much more elaborate on the right.
It's dampening my faith in humanity and education in America.. First thing you learn in any college English class: verify your sources -- when doing projects/reports you don't use wikipedia, you use peer reviewed articles/etc..
We can't always do that on the web, but some sites def. are more trustworthy than others... I generally don't trust CNN/Fox/MSNBC either as they are so tempered by opinions lately... and I use aggregators to get equal sides of an argument. Seems to me American's were a lot more intelligent when the news was required to play opinions from both sides of an issue... Sad that Reagan killed that little law.
We can't always do that on the web, but some sites def. are more trustworthy than others... I generally don't trust CNN/Fox/MSNBC either as they are so tempered by opinions lately... and I use aggregators to get equal sides of an argument. Seems to me American's were a lot more intelligent when the news was required to play opinions from both sides of an issue... Sad that Reagan killed that little law.
It's not that bad, the media is just complaining about it because their own credibility is being threatened.
I saw this mentioned in the Wikileaks AMA in Reddit, and it seemed so ridiculous that I felt compelled to look at what was being said. My conclusion was that that it wasn't a joke --- the people doing the research on Reddit genuinely believed what they were writing, and while likely wrong about the specifics of all their accusations, they in fact might have discovered enough oddities to be justified in thinking that "something just wasn't right".
For example, here's an example of the sort of email they felt might be 'coded' pedophilia:
With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun, and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052
While I'm almost certain that a message sent to a listserv talking about transporting "Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment" is just a way of encouraging people to bring their own children of similar age by pointing out that there will be other kids attending, I can see that the odd phrasing might raise suspicion in some contexts. One of those contexts would be finding out that some of the people involved in the email chain are "friends of friends" of people who in fact have been convicted of child molestation, and it seems possible that this is indeed the case. At the least, it seems to be something they believe they have found.
Anyway, if you want to dive into it to see for yourself, here's an summary of some of the 'evidence' they dug up: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5da0kp/comet_pin...
For example, here's an example of the sort of email they felt might be 'coded' pedophilia:
With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun, and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052
While I'm almost certain that a message sent to a listserv talking about transporting "Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment" is just a way of encouraging people to bring their own children of similar age by pointing out that there will be other kids attending, I can see that the odd phrasing might raise suspicion in some contexts. One of those contexts would be finding out that some of the people involved in the email chain are "friends of friends" of people who in fact have been convicted of child molestation, and it seems possible that this is indeed the case. At the least, it seems to be something they believe they have found.
Anyway, if you want to dive into it to see for yourself, here's an summary of some of the 'evidence' they dug up: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5da0kp/comet_pin...
It's pretty hilarious that amongst the pearl clutching and virtue signaling and holding up the NY times as if it was a crucifix against vampires, there is flat out deafening silence when you bring up just a shred of the things that have been revealed during the affair in question.
I don't know what to think either, but the response amongst otherwise intelligent people on this is pretty weird, in both the positive and negative case directions.
I don't know what to think either, but the response amongst otherwise intelligent people on this is pretty weird, in both the positive and negative case directions.
Smells like 4chan manufactured not just the claims but perhaps even the outrage. But they got what they wanted: NYT coverage. YHBT. HAND.
Times: please don't feed the trolls.
Times: please don't feed the trolls.
No. There are actual voters that believe(d) this [1]. It's trolling but it needs to be addressed.
[1] https://twitter.com/ch402/status/796409197411713024
[1] https://twitter.com/ch402/status/796409197411713024
Yeah, this thing is semi-big on reddit, and to me it looks like a lot of
nuts actually believe this. But the question remains, was this thing
initialized by some /pol/ übertrolls, or was it only conspiracy nuts
from the beginning?
Started with people finding what they thought were pedo keywords in the Podesta emails. More searching led to circumstantial evidence. Besta Pizza is the one they think is most guilty. Besta Pizza logo looked a lot like a secret symbol used by pedos, until they recently changed it.
Not sure how Comet fits in. Maybe Podesta ordered from them for the many 'pizza parties' referenced in his emails, with lines like 'i don't like hair on my pizza.'
Combination of strange references to 'pizza' in the emails, the logos, the utter distrust of establishment politicians (especially those connected to Hillary), fuelled by ongoing theories about so-called elites' child trafficking rings (Epstein).
Not sure how Comet fits in. Maybe Podesta ordered from them for the many 'pizza parties' referenced in his emails, with lines like 'i don't like hair on my pizza.'
Combination of strange references to 'pizza' in the emails, the logos, the utter distrust of establishment politicians (especially those connected to Hillary), fuelled by ongoing theories about so-called elites' child trafficking rings (Epstein).
> what they thought
What makes so sure about this? These claims are so nonsensical that it could be “what they wanted the reddit conspiracy hive-mind to believe”.
What makes so sure about this? These claims are so nonsensical that it could be “what they wanted the reddit conspiracy hive-mind to believe”.
Yep you're 100% on the money. I've been watching this unfold since it started with anons croudsourcing the podesta email dumps looking for crimes.
The new york times has no credibility with a large portion of liberals and conservatives after the last election. I don't think them addressing anything right now is a good idea. Half of my liberal friends dont trust the mainstream media at all anymore, and ALL of my conservative friends are taking the new york times articles as PROOF something is afoot.
* no credibility with a large portion of liberals and conservatives after the last election
Citation needed that people think the NYTimes is lying (as opposed to selectively reporting). I don't dispute some conservatives believe the NYTimes is lying.
Citation needed that people think the NYTimes is lying (as opposed to selectively reporting). I don't dispute some conservatives believe the NYTimes is lying.
At this point, I'd frankly be satisfied if the NYT stopped feeding the literal white supremacist neo-Nazis, but that doesn't seem likely to happen. (Seriously, they recently gave someone that even Breitbart doesn't seem willing to give the time of day to a huge platform to expound his views, political goals, and his importance - all of which would otherwise be irrelevant, because he had almost no audience or power.)
If it were wholly manufactured, then the timing of strikes against wikileaks and other CP uncovering agents was way too convenient for the trolls. I don't think that's the case.
I'm no conspiracy nut, but the way Podesta and others talk about food in Wikileaks emails is kinda weird.
But then, weirdness != criminality.
But then, weirdness != criminality.
Owner of the pizzeria posting pics of tied up children to his instagram is also "kinda weird".
If there really is some top-secret pedoring, why would they post that shit online?
Perhaps because they're fucked in the head.
For all the people saying this is fabricated here, has anyone had any explanations for these aspects of it? Have to say that Instagram account set my Spidey senses off unless it was hacked.
It is. Definitely is.
I know where I'll be eating dinner if I ever visit Washington DC. If enough people make a practice of standing up for victims like these, we might see less use of weaponized slander.
This is a wonderful sentiment, but as someone who lives next door to this place, you absolutely don't want to eat there.
If you come to DC, by all means buy some food from there, but then throw it in the garbage and I'll happily treat you to a much better dinner.
If you come to DC, by all means buy some food from there, but then throw it in the garbage and I'll happily treat you to a much better dinner.
Look at the archive of this man's instagram. Judge for yourself. Don't just take the NYTimes' opinion as sacred. This is a massive scandal that is breaking as we speak.
> Look at the archive of this man's instagram. Judge for yourself.
Done and done. Saw a bunch of happy customers posting pictures of their kids having a blast at a family restaurant...all captioned with misleading and, occasionally, vile captions.
Done and done. Saw a bunch of happy customers posting pictures of their kids having a blast at a family restaurant...all captioned with misleading and, occasionally, vile captions.
Not saying you are right, but I found a summary of what this is about that gives some understanding of why a lot of people seem to believe in this stuff: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5da0kp/comet_pin...
There are a disturbing number of new accounts being formed to comment idiotically on this thread. Mods should lock. The troll brigades are landing. The real target of this misinformation campaign is very likely to be the site Media Matters, as the article obliquely suggests.
I don't know what to believe, but I'm not going to take the New York Times at its word. I see it has already lied once in the article.
Remember 2003, Iraq war, WMDs? That took thousands of dollars out of your pocket.
Let's agree on one thing here. Spreading false information is unhelpful.
Remember 2003, Iraq war, WMDs? That took thousands of dollars out of your pocket.
Let's agree on one thing here. Spreading false information is unhelpful.
I was just thinking about the recent Black Mirror episode about how easy it is for a hivemind of righteous (or totally false wacko) anger to appear and make victims.
The way twitter/4chan/facebook work is that it's basically a streaming tube of recency, where content gets pushed through it and everyone is forced to look at the top of the heap, ie the newest memes.
If you actually had a graph the size of your network, and the font size of the comments/content your friends' post actually reflect their voice in context of the whole network (e.g. smaller), maybe you'd see it less as a spotlight and more as background noise.
The way twitter/4chan/facebook work is that it's basically a streaming tube of recency, where content gets pushed through it and everyone is forced to look at the top of the heap, ie the newest memes.
If you actually had a graph the size of your network, and the font size of the comments/content your friends' post actually reflect their voice in context of the whole network (e.g. smaller), maybe you'd see it less as a spotlight and more as background noise.
[deleted]
Years ago a writer friend of mine asked me about and idea of how a group of people all doing the same thing at the same time could do the most damage in general.
I surely did not have good enough ideas for a writing, but this pizzagate thing seems to be one terrifying answer to that inquiry.
Just that in this case the damage is very concentrated and it seems to affect only on a few group of people.
I surely did not have good enough ideas for a writing, but this pizzagate thing seems to be one terrifying answer to that inquiry.
Just that in this case the damage is very concentrated and it seems to affect only on a few group of people.
I was expecting a reply for each accusation and found nothing. Can you please reply about 65 grand pizza? This is so simple.
[deleted]
It's not racism. Check.
It's not misogyny. Check.
It's not bigotry. Check.
We get it. There are disenfranchised folks in the US that feel under-represented and even targeted/blamed etc.
But this, this nonsense, is beyond the pale. You got your president elect. Worst case, thousands will pay the price in rights, access to services or the ability to live in a democratic society, free from the challenges (life threatening or otherwise) that they sought splice from.
It's a small business. Parents, customers with children, sullied by this insane, malicious group of alt right sociopaths who make up The_Donald and other locations. To justify or support this shit obliterates any legitimate credibility, however remote, they may have had.
It's not misogyny. Check.
It's not bigotry. Check.
We get it. There are disenfranchised folks in the US that feel under-represented and even targeted/blamed etc.
But this, this nonsense, is beyond the pale. You got your president elect. Worst case, thousands will pay the price in rights, access to services or the ability to live in a democratic society, free from the challenges (life threatening or otherwise) that they sought splice from.
It's a small business. Parents, customers with children, sullied by this insane, malicious group of alt right sociopaths who make up The_Donald and other locations. To justify or support this shit obliterates any legitimate credibility, however remote, they may have had.
Ah yes, the "legitimate credibility" of 4chan. I'm sure they're horrified by it finally being obliterated by this, and not every other op over the last 10 years.
> Worst case, thousands will pay the price in rights, access to services or the ability to live in a democratic society, free from the challenges (life threatening or otherwise) that they sought splice from.
I'm not sure what your point is?
> Worst case, thousands will pay the price in rights, access to services or the ability to live in a democratic society, free from the challenges (life threatening or otherwise) that they sought splice from.
I'm not sure what your point is?
Typo in there, my point is that this President-Elect has indicated, and begun by appointment, the process of removing rights (hard won in many cases) from individuals.
This is what the voting populace wanted so clearly there is a desire on the part of many of the Republicans, Trump supporters and protest voters for this to happen.
To further allow this type of witch-hunt bullshit continue is throwing salt on a wound that will not in any way help with those impacted by this election and it's fallout.
People on the "left" will see this type of activity and continue to paint the "right" with the same generalizations that the right is adamant is not their true fight/cause etc.
The "right" should be denouncing this immediately and disavowing these types of actions if there is any hope of bridging the divide.
Unless, of course, there is no interest in doing that at all.
This is what the voting populace wanted so clearly there is a desire on the part of many of the Republicans, Trump supporters and protest voters for this to happen.
To further allow this type of witch-hunt bullshit continue is throwing salt on a wound that will not in any way help with those impacted by this election and it's fallout.
People on the "left" will see this type of activity and continue to paint the "right" with the same generalizations that the right is adamant is not their true fight/cause etc.
The "right" should be denouncing this immediately and disavowing these types of actions if there is any hope of bridging the divide.
Unless, of course, there is no interest in doing that at all.
> The "right" should be denouncing this immediately and disavowing these types of actions if there is any hope of bridging the divide.
I mean, the right calls for denouncing the post-election riots, the left calls for denouncing this BS. Both point at the other and say "this is why we can't cooperate!" after neither happens.
So goes partisan politics.
Also: it's called "alt right" because it's politically radioactive and the GOP wants nothing to do with it.
I mean, the right calls for denouncing the post-election riots, the left calls for denouncing this BS. Both point at the other and say "this is why we can't cooperate!" after neither happens.
So goes partisan politics.
Also: it's called "alt right" because it's politically radioactive and the GOP wants nothing to do with it.
> The "right" should be denouncing this immediately and disavowing these types of actions if there is any hope of bridging the divide.
The biggest divide in America is between the capitalist class and the working class. It can only be bridged by a reverse wealth transfer that's been accumulating since the anti-trust laws were weakened and unions gelded.
The biggest divide in America is between the capitalist class and the working class. It can only be bridged by a reverse wealth transfer that's been accumulating since the anti-trust laws were weakened and unions gelded.
I think it's safe to say these kinds of trolls do not represent, in any way, the majority of republican voters.
Then we can look to the republican voters to denounce their actions.
That is, after all, the standard that we hold Muslims to. As well as the standard we hold progressives to when anarchists try to turn peaceful protests into riots.
The party of personal responsibility is often quick to hold groups accountable for the actions of individuals.
That is, after all, the standard that we hold Muslims to. As well as the standard we hold progressives to when anarchists try to turn peaceful protests into riots.
The party of personal responsibility is often quick to hold groups accountable for the actions of individuals.
I will denounce anyone who claims this is definitely true, there is 10000% nothing definitive here, but you can't really fault people for investigating after the number of secret child sex abuse scandals that have happened in the past two or three decades.
> you can't really fault people for investigating after the number of secret child sex abuse scandals that have happened in the past two or three decades.
Are these people really investigating though? What they are doing is posting threats, lies and rumours on social media sites under the guise of "we just don't want children to be raped." Nobody that posts:
> I won't stop tweeting about #PizzaGate until I know for a fact that there aren't children in danger being covered up by the US government
is "investigating" anything unless you count "making Twitter posts that contain the #PizzaGate hashtag" as an investigation.
You're also missing that many of these people are starting with the conclusion that child molestation is going on, and they are just looking for evidence of what they "know" is happening. That's not an investigation. That's a witch hunt.
Are these people really investigating though? What they are doing is posting threats, lies and rumours on social media sites under the guise of "we just don't want children to be raped." Nobody that posts:
> I won't stop tweeting about #PizzaGate until I know for a fact that there aren't children in danger being covered up by the US government
is "investigating" anything unless you count "making Twitter posts that contain the #PizzaGate hashtag" as an investigation.
You're also missing that many of these people are starting with the conclusion that child molestation is going on, and they are just looking for evidence of what they "know" is happening. That's not an investigation. That's a witch hunt.
Why? 71% of Republicans doubted Obama's birthplace.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...
The sample size of this poll is inadequate, and it's online w/preselected sample.
[deleted]
There was a comment here previously by [redacted] which said:
"There are just so many pieces that almost neatly fit together - it's gross. Too many coincidences to just hand-wave away.
More context: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/
Their reaction to this article specifically: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5e8lg7/the_nyt_j....
Insane ramblings of paint-huffers? Or people who maybe saw something they shouldn't?"
They deleted their comment - I guess they were getting too many downvotes. But I created this account to reply, so screw it:
How can anyone ever disprove a conspiracy theory like that? It's impossible.
I saw in passing an interview with someone who thought that Hillary was ordering child abuse victims using "Pizza" as a code word. I never actually realized it was a serious accusation.
"False news" isn't the issue. It's people are completely unable to evaluate how likely something is in any meaningful way if that person is on the opposite side of politics.
"There are just so many pieces that almost neatly fit together - it's gross. Too many coincidences to just hand-wave away.
More context: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/
Their reaction to this article specifically: https://www.reddit.com/r/pizzagate/comments/5e8lg7/the_nyt_j....
Insane ramblings of paint-huffers? Or people who maybe saw something they shouldn't?"
They deleted their comment - I guess they were getting too many downvotes. But I created this account to reply, so screw it:
How can anyone ever disprove a conspiracy theory like that? It's impossible.
I saw in passing an interview with someone who thought that Hillary was ordering child abuse victims using "Pizza" as a code word. I never actually realized it was a serious accusation.
"False news" isn't the issue. It's people are completely unable to evaluate how likely something is in any meaningful way if that person is on the opposite side of politics.
Hey, if a user deleted their comment, that's their prerogative and it's unfair to override that without their permission. People here need to treat each other better than on the internet at large, or what sort of a community are we?
It's extremely rare that we'd edit a comment but I don't think you have property rights over this one, so I'm going to redact the username you put in there and ask you not to do this again.
It's extremely rare that we'd edit a comment but I don't think you have property rights over this one, so I'm going to redact the username you put in there and ask you not to do this again.
Something I've wanted to ask, then... Why is there a relatively short cutoff period for deleting one of your own comments?
The window is 2 hours, same as for editing.
HN threads are collaborations; comments aren't just individual property. Active threads develop quickly in response to existing posts, and editing/deleting earlier comments removes context that the later ones are based on. The longer the time window, the more likely that later comments will get invalidated and/or history rewritten. So we need an edit window that's long enough for people to refine their comment or have second thoughts about it, but brief enough not to pull the rug out from others.
We're happy to delete comments or sometimes even edit them after the fact if people have a good reason for needing that (e.g. they're worried about getting in trouble from something they posted). But we only do that in response to specific requests about specific links. We don't delete history wholesale.
HN threads are collaborations; comments aren't just individual property. Active threads develop quickly in response to existing posts, and editing/deleting earlier comments removes context that the later ones are based on. The longer the time window, the more likely that later comments will get invalidated and/or history rewritten. So we need an edit window that's long enough for people to refine their comment or have second thoughts about it, but brief enough not to pull the rug out from others.
We're happy to delete comments or sometimes even edit them after the fact if people have a good reason for needing that (e.g. they're worried about getting in trouble from something they posted). But we only do that in response to specific requests about specific links. We don't delete history wholesale.
> How can anyone ever disprove a conspiracy theory like that? It's impossible.
Indeed, you cannot. To even address it directly gives it credence and power. It is so absolutely asininely absurd as to warrant complete disregard.
Indeed, you cannot. To even address it directly gives it credence and power. It is so absolutely asininely absurd as to warrant complete disregard.
nbb(3)
quilted(1)
Some americans are so fucking stupid it's beyond me. Unfortunately that is also true for the population in my country and much likely the entire world.
No, we more than likely have you beat. People blame Hillary for "losing the election" (that she won, actually). It's the minority of voters who happen to live in privileged areas that get to choose our next President who chose the nitwit over a Yale Law grad. Smart has been out in my country for a while now and it's really a shame considering the superpower status.
It's nonsense to claim that Hillary actually won the election, because by doing so you're changing the rules of the contest after the fact.
The goal was to get the most electoral votes, and Trump (for better or worse) followed a strategy that allowed him to obtain more than Hillary. Had the goal at the start of the election been to win the most votes in total, then the strategy followed by both sides would have been massively different. We really can't say one way or the other who would have won the popular vote in such a scenario.
People need to rip this band aid off already. Hillary lost, and it's her own fault.
The goal was to get the most electoral votes, and Trump (for better or worse) followed a strategy that allowed him to obtain more than Hillary. Had the goal at the start of the election been to win the most votes in total, then the strategy followed by both sides would have been massively different. We really can't say one way or the other who would have won the popular vote in such a scenario.
People need to rip this band aid off already. Hillary lost, and it's her own fault.
More people, ~2.5 million voted for her. People vote, counties/states do not. How would you feel if you simply were born in the wrong part of the country and you're with the majority and your vote didn't end up mattering? To have your vote matter, you need to be in Ohio or Michigan.
The Yale Law grad is at fault for losing to that barbarian? Wrong again. The minority of the voting public, who believe they are victims- are at fault. And the USA is the one that will end up losing.
The Yale Law grad is at fault for losing to that barbarian? Wrong again. The minority of the voting public, who believe they are victims- are at fault. And the USA is the one that will end up losing.
How are people so quick to dismiss what they are talking about on 4chan and reddit? What if this is a legitimate pedophile ring of Washington elites, and what if they are using their influence to brush it under the rug? Doesn't that possibility bother you? Why not examine the evidence (intentionally omitted from this article) yourself?
... and posting hashtags on Twitter, sending death threats, and hurling accusations at anyone within a mile radius of this pizzaria is how you go down in history for blowing the lid right off this story and getting to the truth, right?
Social pressure on people in charge works. I'm not saying its good or bad here. The new right seems to taken a huge page from saul alinksy and the control-left in their tactics.
In this case, we're talking about 'social pressure' on a pizzeria that should be innocent until proven guilty, but is being smeared by accusations based on little to no evidence (other than "wake up sheeple" type evidence).
And what if they were wherewolves, wouldn't you want to know that too? The problem here is the confirmation bias and logic errors going on with all the theories that there really is no believable proof unless you actually suspend your belief in rational think7.
I like how they hand-wave away the entire thing by saying "its been debunked" with no analysis or article link.
Also why is NYTimes at liberty to decide whats real and fake news ? Agree or disagree, their political analysis leans heavily left.
Also why is NYTimes at liberty to decide whats real and fake news ? Agree or disagree, their political analysis leans heavily left.
It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters, it's the crazies posting conspiracy theories which are still just that. This type of thinking above I think is a major problem these days.
Just because someone says something crazy on the internet doesn't mean that the person being accused is automatically guilty until they take the time out of their life to disprove said thing, it's the exact opposite.
Just because someone says something crazy on the internet doesn't mean that the person being accused is automatically guilty until they take the time out of their life to disprove said thing, it's the exact opposite.
Its not so much that I think its true (I don't) its just that I wouldn't, exactly, at this point be surprised if it was.
In any event, most of the stuff I read is less "omg guys this is totally 100% correct" and more "this is a seriously strange and disturbing set of coincidences" mixed with a lot of memeing circlejerk.
And after things like
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/corey-feldman-elijah-w...
and things like Jeffrey Epstein and the whole Jimmy Savile thing, I'm just not sure anymore of ANYTHING. Honestly, the fact that the NY times feels the need to publish an article debunking it is a (very very tiny) shove towards it being true.
In any event, most of the stuff I read is less "omg guys this is totally 100% correct" and more "this is a seriously strange and disturbing set of coincidences" mixed with a lot of memeing circlejerk.
And after things like
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/corey-feldman-elijah-w...
and things like Jeffrey Epstein and the whole Jimmy Savile thing, I'm just not sure anymore of ANYTHING. Honestly, the fact that the NY times feels the need to publish an article debunking it is a (very very tiny) shove towards it being true.
It really is just natural followup from the election and Trump winning.
I've seen it firsthand constantly the last few months on my FB feed. When ~50% of the electorate gets their news from Facebook only and it is 99% nonsense conspiracy theories not rooted in reality, the NYT and others have had a reality check that they should start calling out this nonsensical crap since so many people are gullible and actually are swayed by it.
I've seen it firsthand constantly the last few months on my FB feed. When ~50% of the electorate gets their news from Facebook only and it is 99% nonsense conspiracy theories not rooted in reality, the NYT and others have had a reality check that they should start calling out this nonsensical crap since so many people are gullible and actually are swayed by it.
> It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters
If they don't want to do that they shouldn't title their article "Fact Check". If I see "Fact Check" I expect a piece that will engage the conspiracy theory in detail and debunk it piece by piece. Something like Snopes does, for example.
Saying "this is fake news, just trust me" is not a fact check, it's an opinion piece.
If they don't want to do that they shouldn't title their article "Fact Check". If I see "Fact Check" I expect a piece that will engage the conspiracy theory in detail and debunk it piece by piece. Something like Snopes does, for example.
Saying "this is fake news, just trust me" is not a fact check, it's an opinion piece.
No, many fact check websites (such as Snopes) will debunk conspiracy theories by simply saying "there is no evidence to support the theory, it's just wild speculation."
This is a perfectly valid fact check.
This is a perfectly valid fact check.
I disagree that it constitutes a valid fact check, but it doesn't matter, nytimes removed the fact check label.
It does constitute a valid fact check. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Claim: EdiX is a crazy pedophile
Fact-check: This is just random speculation and there is no evidence.
By your standards an actual fact-check would need to cite testimony from your (ex-)partner(s)/spouse(s), a psychological evaluation, maybe some videos of you not being a pedophile around children. Utterly ridiculous.
Claim: EdiX is a crazy pedophile
Fact-check: This is just random speculation and there is no evidence.
By your standards an actual fact-check would need to cite testimony from your (ex-)partner(s)/spouse(s), a psychological evaluation, maybe some videos of you not being a pedophile around children. Utterly ridiculous.
Exactly but its their choice to write this article and they present no evidence the accusations have been debunked.
At best Its a weak attempt to defend the place, at worst its an example of a real news story that is being called fake to suppress opposition. Which is IMO what this whole fake news thing is really about.
The left's playbook is so one dimensional - always smear the messenger, never debate the message.
At best Its a weak attempt to defend the place, at worst its an example of a real news story that is being called fake to suppress opposition. Which is IMO what this whole fake news thing is really about.
The left's playbook is so one dimensional - always smear the messenger, never debate the message.
The message is: Please stop believing in nonsense conspiracy theories which have no basis in reality.
If there was a story here backed up by facts it would be covered by the NYT.
If there was a story here backed up by facts it would be covered by the NYT.
> their political analysis leans heavily left.
Well it's the newspaper of New York, so it's hardly surprising.
Well it's the newspaper of New York, so it's hardly surprising.
jjelly is a child molester. This is a well-known fact.
You deny it? That's exactly what a child molester would say!
You have proof you are not? All lies obviously. This is a major coverup and a conspiracy!
You deny it? That's exactly what a child molester would say!
You have proof you are not? All lies obviously. This is a major coverup and a conspiracy!
[deleted]
[deleted]
You just have to trust them. I mean have they ever been wrong about anything?
[deleted]
After completely failing at predicting Trump's election victory and completely misjudging the views of the populace, the mainstream media is now taking advantage of this situation using the tag 'fake news' to label competition to restore its credibility. A Pizza Shop on a crusade against 'fake news', new term for this month, who knew?
> A Pizza Shop on a crusade against 'fake news'
Getting dozens of calls threatening to kill you, having your kid's pictures reposted all over the internet, and getting doxed are not how I would describe "a crusade against fake news". This is hardly new. Swatting, gamergate, etc are all manifestations of similar things. Why are you so dismissive?
Internet mobs are easy to rile up and difficult to control. Each individual participating only takes one minor action (for example calling and yelling at the other party one time) but the victims of the abuse suffer a massive torrent of hate and slander with basically no recourse. People get fired because their employer doesn't want to deal with the harassment or bad press.
For a long time a simple accusation was enough to get the mob going. Now you don't even need that much, just some conspiracy-mongering and a few likes on Facebook and you too can send a mob after anyone for no reason at all!
Getting dozens of calls threatening to kill you, having your kid's pictures reposted all over the internet, and getting doxed are not how I would describe "a crusade against fake news". This is hardly new. Swatting, gamergate, etc are all manifestations of similar things. Why are you so dismissive?
Internet mobs are easy to rile up and difficult to control. Each individual participating only takes one minor action (for example calling and yelling at the other party one time) but the victims of the abuse suffer a massive torrent of hate and slander with basically no recourse. People get fired because their employer doesn't want to deal with the harassment or bad press.
For a long time a simple accusation was enough to get the mob going. Now you don't even need that much, just some conspiracy-mongering and a few likes on Facebook and you too can send a mob after anyone for no reason at all!
The NY Times helped rile up the mob that harassed Tim Hunt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/tim-hunt-nobe...
They aren't opposed to Internet mobs, just those that don't fit their agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/tim-hunt-nobe...
They aren't opposed to Internet mobs, just those that don't fit their agenda.
Come on, this is a complete false equivalency. In Tim Hunt's case, Tim Hunt actually said the things that were the cause of other people's ire. Perhaps you can argue that NYT's opinion pages were one sided, but at least they are explicitly labeled as opinion.
The mob that harassed the pizza shop owner was riled up by a totally false and horrific, incredibly libelous lie.
The mob that harassed the pizza shop owner was riled up by a totally false and horrific, incredibly libelous lie.
> Come on, this is a complete false equivalency.
Are you suggesting the mob that attacked Tim Hunt was justified?
> In Tim Hunt's case, Tim Hunt actually said the things that were the cause of other people's ire.
As a joke, which (we know from a recording and the reports of other attendees) was well received by the audience in general, save one reporter who saw an opportunity to profit by misrepresenting his remarks.
> Perhaps you can argue that NYT's opinion pages were one sided, but at least they are explicitly labeled as opinion.
One discussion was, the article linked above was not. It claimed quite seriously that Tim Hunt said "female scientists should be segregated from male colleagues".
> The mob that harassed the pizza shop owner was riled up by a totally false and horrific, incredibly libelous lie.
As was the mob that harassed Tim Hunt. The much bigger lie that he was some sort of chauvinist keeping women out of science.
A lie that was exposed by the many women who worked with him and defended him.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4477447.ece
Are you suggesting the mob that attacked Tim Hunt was justified?
> In Tim Hunt's case, Tim Hunt actually said the things that were the cause of other people's ire.
As a joke, which (we know from a recording and the reports of other attendees) was well received by the audience in general, save one reporter who saw an opportunity to profit by misrepresenting his remarks.
> Perhaps you can argue that NYT's opinion pages were one sided, but at least they are explicitly labeled as opinion.
One discussion was, the article linked above was not. It claimed quite seriously that Tim Hunt said "female scientists should be segregated from male colleagues".
> The mob that harassed the pizza shop owner was riled up by a totally false and horrific, incredibly libelous lie.
As was the mob that harassed Tim Hunt. The much bigger lie that he was some sort of chauvinist keeping women out of science.
A lie that was exposed by the many women who worked with him and defended him.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4477447.ece
Thank you. You've changed my opinion of this episode, and I agree that NYT did a great disservice by how this was reported. The realclearpolitics summary I think gives a much clearer and fairer overview of what really happened.
I hope, though, that most people would feel the same anger and disappointment that I feel over being misled whether or not it agrees with their views, instead of doubling down on false information in the hopes that spreading it further somehow makes it more real.
I hope, though, that most people would feel the same anger and disappointment that I feel over being misled whether or not it agrees with their views, instead of doubling down on false information in the hopes that spreading it further somehow makes it more real.
He said them in jest, and the audience didn't react in horror the way the original clickbait said they did, as proven by recordings. It was pure projection and misrepresentation on the author's part, and everyone else listened and believed and ran with it.
It was also false, horrific and libellous, and he did lose his job over it. Just because the stick used to beat people with was misogyny instead of cheese pizza, doesn't make the act of spreading false information any less despicable.
Edit: BTW, the fact that our media is now staffed by people who are utterly unable to separate their subjective experience from objective reality should seriously worry you. It should also make you reconsider anything you've heard about what's going on in culture wars online and offline, because I guarantee you, the people covering it do not have the statistical and digital literacy to accurately gauge the size and nature of things.
It was also false, horrific and libellous, and he did lose his job over it. Just because the stick used to beat people with was misogyny instead of cheese pizza, doesn't make the act of spreading false information any less despicable.
Edit: BTW, the fact that our media is now staffed by people who are utterly unable to separate their subjective experience from objective reality should seriously worry you. It should also make you reconsider anything you've heard about what's going on in culture wars online and offline, because I guarantee you, the people covering it do not have the statistical and digital literacy to accurately gauge the size and nature of things.
Indeed.
> Well, now that the dust has cleared and the story has faded from the American press, there’s a postscript that amounts to: “Never mind.” It turns out that, just as Hunt has claimed, the 72-year-old scientist’s comments during a luncheon at a science journalism conference in Korea in June were an awkward self-deprecating joke—greeted with laughter (not the reported “stony silence”) by a mostly female audience. The “Tim Hunt, misogynist scientist” narrative has been falling apart piece by piece over the past month; last week, it was finished off by a snippet of audio recorded by a female attendee and made public by The Times. Now, attention should turn to the real scandal: irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/22/sexist_...
> Well, now that the dust has cleared and the story has faded from the American press, there’s a postscript that amounts to: “Never mind.” It turns out that, just as Hunt has claimed, the 72-year-old scientist’s comments during a luncheon at a science journalism conference in Korea in June were an awkward self-deprecating joke—greeted with laughter (not the reported “stony silence”) by a mostly female audience. The “Tim Hunt, misogynist scientist” narrative has been falling apart piece by piece over the past month; last week, it was finished off by a snippet of audio recorded by a female attendee and made public by The Times. Now, attention should turn to the real scandal: irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/22/sexist_...
[deleted]
Even something like this is enough to get a mob going: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/donald-trump-arizona-...
Yelp seems to have cleaned it up by now, but Google Places definitely hasn't. Was interesting to see how much offense people will take at something minor like this, and how far people will go - like making up a 2 paragraph story and attaching a picture of a rat in food that they found on Google. Lots of "normal" people making up stories that were completely fictional, because they felt driven to punish a business (that they had never visited) for this.
Yelp seems to have cleaned it up by now, but Google Places definitely hasn't. Was interesting to see how much offense people will take at something minor like this, and how far people will go - like making up a 2 paragraph story and attaching a picture of a rat in food that they found on Google. Lots of "normal" people making up stories that were completely fictional, because they felt driven to punish a business (that they had never visited) for this.
Exactly, and the NYT is using the Pizza Shop's plight for its own agenda of painting its competitors under one brush. If they really worried about alternative media, rather than dictating their fakeness, they'd educate their readers on how to analyse information on their own, instead of attempting to restore their information monopoly - where they are the arbiter of what's true.
You can deride the NYT, but none of what you said makes this pizzeria owner's plight any less real. It is a very real problem that the populace can be manipulated to the point of irrational misdirected hate like this.
> It is a very real problem that the populace can be manipulated to the point of irrational misdirected hate like this.
It's things like these that sometimes make me question the democratic system. These people aren't fit to vote.
It's things like these that sometimes make me question the democratic system. These people aren't fit to vote.
Who are you to determine who is fit to vote or not vote? The point of democracy is that EVERY citizen has a say in their government, despite how insane their belief system may be.
I'm not saying I am and I don't claim to have an alternative to the current system.
However it's my very subjective opinion that participation in the democratic process maybe shouldn't be unconditional considering there are people who are that prone to be manipulated by objectively and obviously fake news as outlined in the article. Most roles in society, whether it's being a lawyer, doctor, parent, student or bus driver, come with requirements. Maybe being a voter should too. Again, I don't have any solutions - just thinking out loud.
Regardless of this and to put focus on those that publish this nonsense, of course there should be real consequences and liabilities for the outlets of these insane stories.
Regardless of this and to put focus on those that publish this nonsense, of course there should be real consequences and liabilities for the outlets of these insane stories.
The point of democracy is that EVERY citizen has a say in their government, despite how insane their belief system may be.
Presumably this is why the poster you responded to is questioning the democratic system, so you haven't really presented a counterargument here.
Presumably this is why the poster you responded to is questioning the democratic system, so you haven't really presented a counterargument here.
[deleted]
You're certainly right about the plight of the pizza shop, but the NYT is not normally in the business of reporting on the plight of a pizza shop. That was merely a story that fit a larger agenda (their recent push to discredit independent media by focusing on fake news).
Fake news is a problem but trusting corporate media is not a solution.
Fake news is a problem but trusting corporate media is not a solution.
The larger agenda of... informing people about incorrect information?
We're at the point where NYT could publish a video of someone confessing to murder with a weapon in their hand and someone would comment "typical corporate media shills".
We're at the point where NYT could publish a video of someone confessing to murder with a weapon in their hand and someone would comment "typical corporate media shills".
The larger agenda of informing people of only incorrect information provided by independent media. Surely you've noticed the many stories about "fake news" recently.
Where are the stories about independent media getting a scoop? Publishing a story the corporate media ignore or would prefer to ignore? Exposing corporate media errors or misquoted sources?
Corporate media (usually) tells the truth, but only part of the truth, and in so doing they attempt to skew public opinion. In this case, they'd like to skew public opinion toward distrust of independent media.
Where are the stories about independent media getting a scoop? Publishing a story the corporate media ignore or would prefer to ignore? Exposing corporate media errors or misquoted sources?
Corporate media (usually) tells the truth, but only part of the truth, and in so doing they attempt to skew public opinion. In this case, they'd like to skew public opinion toward distrust of independent media.
What exactly are you suggesting here? That the NYT made up this story? That they shouldn't report on this story because they got Trump winning the election wrong?
This seems like an interesting and informative story to me. Threads for any NYT story are going to get really tedious if they all get a "they got Trump wrong so why should I listen?" comment attached.
This seems like an interesting and informative story to me. Threads for any NYT story are going to get really tedious if they all get a "they got Trump wrong so why should I listen?" comment attached.
This story is worth reporting and NYT is squeezing it to distract from its own failings. They should not lump all non-mainstream media under the fake news label, when even mainstream media reports fake news - Besides Clinton, Iraq weapons of mass destruction was another example.
This thinking, coupled with reports from the media huddle in Trump Tower today and his statements on libel really make me afraid for the free press in this country.
>What exactly are you suggesting here?
There is no coherent suggestion.
What he and his cohort is doing is yelling 'Lugenpresse' into every discussion on the topic they can find.
There is no coherent suggestion.
What he and his cohort is doing is yelling 'Lugenpresse' into every discussion on the topic they can find.
Every news everywhere is labelling fake/lying news everywhere else. Fake news/Lugenpresse same terms different language.
Screaming 'the whole press lies!' and falsely equating it with deliberate fabrications has been done by the far right for 80 years.
Spamming what would be intelligent discussions with such nonsense is a new thing.
Spamming what would be intelligent discussions with such nonsense is a new thing.
This attitude is kind of infuriating. The fact that there are problems with the mainstream media does not mean that the current explosion of complete and utter bullshit, what has been referred to as "the post-fact era", is somehow better or OK.
Have you looked at the evidence of this incident? Perhaps if you would, you would feel differently.
First a pizza place in the Rust Belt won't cater to a hypothetical gay wedding and now this. I guess that Pizza is the new front-line in the culture wars. Pretty sad in my opinion. That said, if there is a war, I hope Domino's and Pizza Hut don't make it. They are the true villains of Big Pizza.
If you have a new account and you'd like to comment in the thread (in good faith of course), you're welcome to email [email protected] and we'll help.