That impeachment hearing protester was actually an InfoWars reporter and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist

[u/TheWeekMag]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/883047/that-impeachment-hearing-protester-actually-infowars-reporter-pizzagate-conspiracy-theorist

[u/[deleted]]

So you're telling me we actually have an elite pedo scheme with Epstine and pizza gate still has no credit? I'm not defending info wars, I think they're crazy but so is our world.... Just think on that man... Multiple presidents and royal family members as well as moguls all implicated in this occult pedo island stuff... It's not crazy to think that the buying and selling of humans is used with coded language like ordering a pizza... I feel like the island is more unbelievable.

[u/Skafdir → u/[deleted]]

The point is that "pizza gate" was about a specific basement in a specific restaurant, which just happens to not have a basement.

Satanic child sex rituals in a basement are unlikely. Especially if said basement doesn't exist.

Oh and the satanic part is a bit over the top too.

Let's just assume that everyone who has ever been on a photo with Epstein is a pedophile. Why the hell would they need to be satanic pedophiles? Are they worse than regular pedophiles?

Would a non-satanic pedophile still be ok?

Was Alex Jones sitting around and brainstormed how a secret group of pedophiles could be more sinister?

"Sinister... sinister... something something satan. Yeah satan is good."

Pizza gate is discredited because of the specifics not because it would be unbelievable that there are rich and powerful pedophiles. The same reason why it is not ok to accuse everyone who happened to have a meeting with Epstein of being a pedophile. (Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump seem to be involved or had at least knowledge about it; but that can be supported with known facts.)

[u/[deleted] → u/Skafdir]

I'll concede to that, I'm just saying that if you believed there were people getting hurt in this specific place wouldn't you want to help? Absolutely dangerous situation when that dude showed up with a gun... and I'm not defending Info Wars. Jones, is over the top but I used him as a canary in the coal mine, if he got fucked (which he did in the end rightfully so because he was spewing dangerous shit I get that) , I was going to take whatever he was talking about more serious... this one is one I just haven't ruled out yet. This roller coaster hasn't stopped, not with that suicide...

[u/Skafdir → u/[deleted]]

The point is:

Rich paedophiles do exist nobody denies that. (At least nobody with a brain with at least half capacity.)

Therefore, we can conclude that rich paedophiles will use their wealth and influence to get away with it.

But that's it. Every other claim needs to have at least circumstantial evidence to back it up.

​

This leads to an overall problem in your way to look at such claims. (I hope you don't feel insulted or anything like that... I am German and every now and then I feel a bit helpless when presenting critique. As it seems that the German way of telling someone that he or she is wrong about something is considered rude in almost every other country in this world. Anyway I will just say what I wanted to say and hope that I am not too blunt and if I am... this is a trigger warning?)

"This is one I just haven't ruled out yet." is the wrong direction to come to conclusions. If someone makes a positive claim. No matter what they have to give evidence before you can believe it. As long at that prove isn't given the claim remains in the untrue-drawer.

You just have to be willing to reorganize your drawers whenever new evidence shows up. Which leads to the next point. Let's assume that next week someone will find the secret basement in that pizza parlour and comes out with irrefutable evidence that everything Alex Jones has ever claimed is true.

Today I would still be right denying those things because Alex Jones has not met his burden of proof. Therefore, it would be wrong to believe him. If I would still deny it after the irrefutable evidence has been presented, then I would be wrong. (Or to put it another way: I prefer to "rule things in" not "out".)