Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-believe-everything-you-read dept.

The guardian reports on a sobering event in Washington DC.

US police have arrested a man wielding an assault rifle who entered a pizza restaurant that was the target of fake news reports it was operating a child abuse ring led by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top campaign aide.

[...] The suspect entered the restaurant and pointed a gun at a restaurant employee, who fled and notified authorities, police said. The man then discharged the weapon inside the restaurant. There were no injuries.

[...] [Police] said the suspect during an interview with investigators revealed that he came to the establishment to "self-investigate" Pizzagate, the police statement said. Pizzagate is a baseless conspiracy, which falsely claims Clinton and her campaign chief John Podesta were running a child sex ring from the restaurant's backrooms.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @06:35PM (#438458)

    > Sorry, but denial of conspiracy theories is just as anti-scientific as acceptance of them.

    That's a bullshit reframing of the issue.

    Get this through your head: conspiracies and conspiracy theories are two distinct things with only a small amount of overlap.

    Legitimate conspiracies are falsifiable. Conspiracy theories are elaborated as needed to discount any contradictory evidence.

    Ask any conspiracy theorist this simple question: What would convince you that the conspiracy theory is false?
    If they won't answer or their answer is outlandish, then you aren't dealing with a rational examination of evidence, you are dealing with someone operating on faith.