My point is just that the meaning of "Pizzagate" has changed over time and Clinton was pretty much a non-factor the whole time, it was focused on Podesta and Alefantis.
> Who's disputing that? I know the emails are almost certainly legit.
Donna Brazile did so on CNN at one point, but I wasn't trying to imply that you believed that.
Podesta was her campaign manager, though, and Alefantis was the owner of a pizza shop used by Clinton and Podesta for fundraisers and such. The implication was that Clinton was involved in some way. Conspiracy theorists have been trying to accuse her of pedophilia for years.
Or, you could avoid a meaningless term and be more specific. Conspiracy is a common class of crime, significant sections of US law are written to deal with them.
Your use if it is classic; applying to a broad class, specifically anyone who you percieve as not believing the same stuff you do. It's possible you know more or less about any specific subject.
It's an excellent way to shut down a conversation on the other hand, nobody wants to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist".
Here's an example, I mentioned confirmation bias hacks below, if you made a list of every use of "planar earth" on this forum, what would you find? It's not people trying to convince others that earth is a 2D surface is it?
I understand it's a common thought-terminating cliche. To put it more clearly:
Making unfounded accusations that certain people are guilty of some of the most heinous crimes conceivable to humanity (killing thousands of people on 9/11; raping children) isn't good. You probably wouldn't want someone to send a 60 page dossier to your employer explaining that you're a child rapist or that you faked the death of your child so you can install a totalitarian government, for example. But if you ever got on the bad side of someone with your mentality, something like that could easily happen to you.
We have a legal system and due process, and other apparatuses for when they fail. If you claim to have evidence of someone or some group committing the most horrific of crimes, truly some of the most shocking and monstrous acts in modern human history, you should be able to report such things to law enforcement, or if not possible (e.g. Abu Ghraib torture whistleblowing), inform any media outlet who can report on the accusations. Otherwise, you're libeling people.
I havent made any claims about who is responsible for 9/11, you are just well, making stuff up based on the (likely bad) information you have been exposed to.
There is a video in my profile, I made it, you can draw your own conclusions if you are interested.
Secrets, known to many, are much more common than you seem to think they are. Differences in information are similar to differences in voltage, there is more potential with a large delta.
Right, but there was never any real evidence of Hillary being some kind of pedophile.
Yes, Hillary once represented a child rapist, implied that he was guilty in an interview because she wouldn't trust lie detectors after he passed one, and got him released. But she was acting as a public defender and had no other relation to the guy. She also once helped secure the release of Laura Silsby, who had been accused of child trafficking, but there's no evidence that she had any association with her outside of that even if we simply assume that Silsby was up to no good.
Now, Bill was convicted of perjury, settled his sexual harassment suit after appealing it, and was separately accused of rape by one Juanita Broderick, but Hillary didn't have any real involvement in that, either, other than some random comments in the media calling the women involved 'bimbos' while alleging a vast right-wing conspiracy to send women to seduce Bill or stop doing laundry or something.
Oh, she also had some loose association with Anthony Wiener (AKA "Carlos Danger"), because he was married to her top aide, Huma.
Even so, the worst charge one can lay on Hillary given all this is a poor choice of words and associates, but we knew that already. I mean, she hangs out with politicians.
> Who's disputing that? I know the emails are almost certainly legit.
Donna Brazile did so on CNN at one point, but I wasn't trying to imply that you believed that.