Well, photoshop did not play a big roll in my flairing the post in the first place...I was still waiting for a reply about how one proves or disproves something has or hasn't been photoshopped. The problem I have is headlines saying "Moloch Obama". Even if the pic is real, how can anyone prove this is actually Obama? The guy is wearing a mask.
Your infographic was impossible to read on either of my devices. How about just coming out and stating your point? If it's so straightforward, that should be easy to do in a few sentences, with links to the original sources of the supporting material.
Are you honestly telling me this infographic was so hard to read you couldnt spot Artur Davis? The infographic was taken from /qresearch/ notables, fyi.
He's not being hostile there, bud. He's asking you to state your point directly, and telling you that the image you provided doesn't work on his devices.
Both Vindicator and I want the source of the claims, but we also want the claims, which it seems you've not presented at this point in the conversation.
A question and then an infographic, even one the user can read, sometimes doesn't serve to communicate what you're wanting to communicate.
I think you both could use a breather, but I'm not going to tell you what to do.
No, I'm telling you I don't see how Artur Davis being in the pic proves the person behind the mask is Obama.
Why are you so hostile towards me?
I think you may be projecting. You keep trying to "read" motives and emotions into my replies. I've had over 60 notifications in my inbox over the past two days of people attacking each other. It is not clear to me who is correct. I have been working 12 hour days in real life and not reading every comment on every thread in v/pizzagate, v/GreatAwakening, qresearch etc. We've also had an onslaught of posts with numerous links to vet, as well as numerous posts ignoring the ruleset. My time is limited.
And when I ask clarifying questions, I get responses like this, implying I'm the asshole, rather than the simple elucidation I requested.
How am I projecting? Do you think my outrage was unjusted? You gave a speech about fighting disinformation to a literal disinformation agent and you not only refuse to apologize but you try to turn it on me? Because I call out bullshit, I am the aggressor?
This all couldv turned out differently if you simply said "Oh damn, sorry people, I am overworked and made a mistake. I'll do my best to not do it again." Simple. What do you do? Avoid admitting to the mistake and try to turn it on me, first with the "oh isnt it weird dooob didnt tag us on his report on v/pizzagatemods, oh very weird" coincidentally ignoring the fact you were pinged by one of the mods thus you shouldv been informed about OWi's subversion attempts.
You are handling this whole situation very wrong, in my opinion. How egoistic are you to not being able to admit when you are wrong? Sorry for being so blunt but you gotta hear it from someone.
You gave a speech about fighting disinformation to a literal disinformation agent and you not only refuse to apologize but you try to turn it on me? Because I call out bullshit
Who do you think needs a lecture on fighting disinformation, Dooob, if not those participating in it? Isn't that what you yourself are attempting to do?
@Oh_Well_ian is not the only user who challenged the thesis of this thread, he just bitched the loudest and happened to be the comment I replied to.
This all couldv turned out differently if you simply said "Oh damn, sorry people, I am overworked and made a mistake.
What do you mean "This could have turned out differently?" Please explain.
Dooob, I don't see how it was a mistake to flair the original thread "Unverified" based on the user comments in the Chan thread and threads on Voat, and then, a full day later, again based on user commentary, change the flair to "Debunked." Even the original submitter agrees.
In v/pizzagate, one of the most shilled locales on the internet, the burden of proof rests on the submitter. Our entire ruleset is set up to weed out BS. The submitter must state a thesis about PG relevance and support his logic with links to primary sources. Moderators make sure those elements are in place. Users judge the value and veracity of the post by commenting, contributing additional research supporting or challenging the thesis, and voting. Moderators occasionally use flairs to draw attention in order to facilitate that discussion by users.
Please explain how I have in any way been "irresponsible," "made a mistake," "handled this situation wrong" or been "egoistic" such that "this situation could have turned out differently."
view the rest of the comments →
dooob ago
Great post, OP. @Vindicator what now? This clearly proves the image is not
a deep fakephotoshoped.Sadly, this post will be slid. @srayzie
Vindicator ago
Well, photoshop did not play a big roll in my flairing the post in the first place...I was still waiting for a reply about how one proves or disproves something has or hasn't been photoshopped. The problem I have is headlines saying "Moloch Obama". Even if the pic is real, how can anyone prove this is actually Obama? The guy is wearing a mask.
dooob ago
What about the guy next to Obama?
https://kek.gg/i/5ktHnp.jpeg
Ignore the occultism part if it is not your cup of tea.
Vindicator ago
What about him? I'm not seeing your point.
dooob ago
Artur Davis... Least you could do was skim through the infographic I posted and you would see what my point was. Are you getting enough sleep?
Vindicator ago
Your infographic was impossible to read on either of my devices. How about just coming out and stating your point? If it's so straightforward, that should be easy to do in a few sentences, with links to the original sources of the supporting material.
dooob ago
Are you honestly telling me this infographic was so hard to read you couldnt spot Artur Davis? The infographic was taken from /qresearch/ notables, fyi.
Why are you so hostile towards me?
Crensch ago
He's not being hostile there, bud. He's asking you to state your point directly, and telling you that the image you provided doesn't work on his devices.
Both Vindicator and I want the source of the claims, but we also want the claims, which it seems you've not presented at this point in the conversation.
A question and then an infographic, even one the user can read, sometimes doesn't serve to communicate what you're wanting to communicate.
I think you both could use a breather, but I'm not going to tell you what to do.
@Vindicator
Vindicator ago
No, I'm telling you I don't see how Artur Davis being in the pic proves the person behind the mask is Obama.
I think you may be projecting. You keep trying to "read" motives and emotions into my replies. I've had over 60 notifications in my inbox over the past two days of people attacking each other. It is not clear to me who is correct. I have been working 12 hour days in real life and not reading every comment on every thread in v/pizzagate, v/GreatAwakening, qresearch etc. We've also had an onslaught of posts with numerous links to vet, as well as numerous posts ignoring the ruleset. My time is limited.
And when I ask clarifying questions, I get responses like this, implying I'm the asshole, rather than the simple elucidation I requested.
@Crensch @think-
dooob ago
How am I projecting? Do you think my outrage was unjusted? You gave a speech about fighting disinformation to a literal disinformation agent and you not only refuse to apologize but you try to turn it on me? Because I call out bullshit, I am the aggressor?
This all couldv turned out differently if you simply said "Oh damn, sorry people, I am overworked and made a mistake. I'll do my best to not do it again." Simple. What do you do? Avoid admitting to the mistake and try to turn it on me, first with the "oh isnt it weird dooob didnt tag us on his report on v/pizzagatemods, oh very weird" coincidentally ignoring the fact you were pinged by one of the mods thus you shouldv been informed about OWi's subversion attempts.
You are handling this whole situation very wrong, in my opinion. How egoistic are you to not being able to admit when you are wrong? Sorry for being so blunt but you gotta hear it from someone.
@Crensch @think-
I do not understand why Vindicator tagged you but you should also see my comment, coin has two sides n shiet.
My eyes are wide open, V.
Vindicator ago
Who do you think needs a lecture on fighting disinformation, Dooob, if not those participating in it? Isn't that what you yourself are attempting to do?
@Oh_Well_ian is not the only user who challenged the thesis of this thread, he just bitched the loudest and happened to be the comment I replied to.
What do you mean "This could have turned out differently?" Please explain.
Dooob, I don't see how it was a mistake to flair the original thread "Unverified" based on the user comments in the Chan thread and threads on Voat, and then, a full day later, again based on user commentary, change the flair to "Debunked." Even the original submitter agrees.
In v/pizzagate, one of the most shilled locales on the internet, the burden of proof rests on the submitter. Our entire ruleset is set up to weed out BS. The submitter must state a thesis about PG relevance and support his logic with links to primary sources. Moderators make sure those elements are in place. Users judge the value and veracity of the post by commenting, contributing additional research supporting or challenging the thesis, and voting. Moderators occasionally use flairs to draw attention in order to facilitate that discussion by users.
The original thread by @IShallNotFear, This deserved it's own post: Possible Obama dressed as Moloch photo found on Instagram, proposed this was a picture of Obama. After seeing the topic flogged so hard on multiple platforms (both pro and con), the downvoting of skeptical commenters here, the use of the topic to provoke and attack users and create a toxic atmosphere, the timing of it all during the IG report, the fact that a known guy with similar smile lines wore the exact same outfit to Burning Man https://i.imgur.com/YBCPIhX.jpg, and that the title of the post itself fuels Confirmation Bias, I thought it wise to flair this thesis "Debunked."
Please explain how I have in any way been "irresponsible," "made a mistake," "handled this situation wrong" or been "egoistic" such that "this situation could have turned out differently."
Don't be coy, Dooob. As you well know, I pinged them because you pinged them to your claim I'm "irresponsible" in the first place and they have been awaiting my input.