Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Infopractical ago
You begin by setting yourself up as the One True Expert, and perhaps you are. But then you never go on to address the point that I raise, which is that the NCMEC, whether run by well meaning people who sometimes do good, could be (intentionally or not) supplying criminals with information they can use to be better criminals.
I would think an expert would understand how to address such a reasonable thought experiment in some way other than appeal to authority.
Look, I hope you're right, but you should understand that there will be investigation, regardless. Too much has been hidden in the past. As an investigator, don't you understand that?
[–] GhostshipResearch ago
And I forgot to address your other point: argumentum ad verecundiam is only fallacious if the authority is not an expert.
The problem here is the majority of contributors are not authorities and are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge actual expertise. As such, the very people guilty of committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority are the ones accusing the experts of it. Priceless.
[–] Infopractical ago
You really just said that appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority itself is false?
Okay, you just lost all credibility as an educated person of any kind.
Thanks and have a nice day.
[–] GhostshipResearch ago
You remain challenged to provide data or a source to support your assertion.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives advertisements with the very least amount of case information possible.
How, then, could they be supplying criminals with anything?
The children are already missing. The public is asked to call the police if they see these children.
The only one's that could possibly be aided by this are the missing children.
I'm not the "One True Expert"; there are a great many like me. You just aren't one of them. No big deal. If you want to "investigate" without the benefit of the knowledge subject matter experts have, you can attempt that as well. Although that's like attempting to diagnose and repair a car's engine without the benefit of a mechanic or a manual.
But if you're going to criticize and cast aspersions on a system that exists to save lives every day, your accusations should at least make sense, if not also be supported by independently verifiable sources of fact.
[–] Infopractical ago
"You remain challenged to provide data or a source to support your assertion."
My assertion was a thought experiment, not a data claim.
You seem very vested in your claim. I expect that you will continue to write walls and walls of words about it. Good work so far.