These seem to me like sources that wouldn't usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.
Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab's comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?
"A paper from Duke University". This is a random, non-peer-reviewed, undergrad honors thesis. Having supervised honors theses myself, they are not exactly the height of sociological research. Also note that the author only proposes "throughlines" between eugenics and Melinda Gates' work, by definition flimsy and tenuous, at best.
This is a perfect example of a Facebook conspiracy theory, based on shoddy, non-peer-reviewed, amateur "research", but appealing to authority by attributing the paper to "Duke University", with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question.
Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab’s comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?
Jesus Christ you can smell the hexbear from a mile away. Go sealion somewhere else.
For anyone else reading this, the problems with the other two "sources" are that the WaPo article is just an opinion piece disguised as "analysis", and the Guardian source (an editorialized version of a much better Wall Street Journal piece) seems to actually imply that Gates didn't pay any hush money to Epstein. Either way, it does make it clear that Epstein had nothing to do with Gates' affair whatsoever, and was just trying to profiteer off it.
Note the fact that the language used by the hexbear above effectively claims the opposite of what their source implies, and leaves out the fact that there's no evidence for any of these assertions. Never blindly trust a source from a hexbear. Actually, never trust a "source" from a hexbear at all, for that matter.
Edit: Also, for anyone reading this, only ever comment on the errors in a hexbear's sources and arguments - don't ever actually engage with a hexbear themselves, because your good faith will be wasted on their disingenuousness. This comment is just a fact-checking PSA for anyone who wondered about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the above sources. Note also the bullshit asymmetry principle well at work here.
As a moderator of Hexbear, I would like to formally apologize for our users committing the Preconceived Prejudice Bias, link if you're unfamiliar.
As we all know, multi-billionaires do not have control of our media institutions and are unable to shut down, directly or indirectly, research and investigations into their activities. They do not have the ability to portray themselves in an extremely positive light. Therefore, you are quite right to assume that all these rumors that they are committing acts like our other users implied are frankly entirely false.
I generally take a similar tack when arguing against conspiracists in Russia who argue in the Russian media that Russian oligarchs are committing evil acts in support of the war - this is obviously untrue, as if they were, they would surely be reported in reputable journals and peer-reviewed as you rightfully point out must be done before putting ANY information onto the internet. Any accusations against Putin himself are, similarly, completely bizarre - the Russian media rightfully portrays him as a shining beacon of light. All other "accusations" are from discredited media and crank Telegram and Facebook groups that oppose Putin and the oligarchs, and I am working to try and get them shut down. It's a similar situation in China, as far as I can tell.
Have a great day, and stay classy, my good friend!
Well I guess I should apologize for myself and others making the mistake of wanting to see claims being supported by, of all things, evidence. What were we thinking?
I believe the proper nomenclature for this individual is "doorknob" as I have demonstrated below through the rigorous scientific thesis of my insult got more upvotes.
Thanks for this. I wasn't able to read the wapo article but unfortunately devoted time to the second source. It definitely reads like an undergrad thesis paper written by someone trying to make a very tenuous connection at all costs despite a paucity of solid evidence. Kind of the written version of this:
In addition to being a senior undergrad thesis it's kind of shit. I don't know why I spent the time to skim it but I did. I think it can be tossed right out.
Regardless of whether or not the commenter or I are sentient doorknobs, "fact" #2 about eugenics is certainly not proven by the strained logic in that paper. The claim is plausible but that's as far as one can take it with that as a source.
I mean fuck billionaires and Gates is as much a ruthless, sociopathic douche-nozzle as any other billionaire.
But he and others like him have done plenty of harmful shit without resorting to using the weakly supported arguments of undergrad thesis papers. I mean c'mon. That's the best we can come up with? Really?
Sir, this is not your Facebook conspiracy theory group.
zifnab's comment has links to:
These seem to me like sources that wouldn't usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.
Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab's comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?
deleted by creator
"A paper from Duke University". This is a random, non-peer-reviewed, undergrad honors thesis. Having supervised honors theses myself, they are not exactly the height of sociological research. Also note that the author only proposes "throughlines" between eugenics and Melinda Gates' work, by definition flimsy and tenuous, at best.
This is a perfect example of a Facebook conspiracy theory, based on shoddy, non-peer-reviewed, amateur "research", but appealing to authority by attributing the paper to "Duke University", with no understanding of the academic context of the paper in question.
Jesus Christ you can smell the hexbear from a mile away. Go sealion somewhere else.
For anyone else reading this, the problems with the other two "sources" are that the WaPo article is just an opinion piece disguised as "analysis", and the Guardian source (an editorialized version of a much better Wall Street Journal piece) seems to actually imply that Gates didn't pay any hush money to Epstein. Either way, it does make it clear that Epstein had nothing to do with Gates' affair whatsoever, and was just trying to profiteer off it.
Note the fact that the language used by the hexbear above effectively claims the opposite of what their source implies, and leaves out the fact that there's no evidence for any of these assertions. Never blindly trust a source from a hexbear. Actually, never trust a "source" from a hexbear at all, for that matter.
Edit: Also, for anyone reading this, only ever comment on the errors in a hexbear's sources and arguments - don't ever actually engage with a hexbear themselves, because your good faith will be wasted on their disingenuousness. This comment is just a fact-checking PSA for anyone who wondered about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the above sources. Note also the bullshit asymmetry principle well at work here.
As a moderator of Hexbear, I would like to formally apologize for our users committing the Preconceived Prejudice Bias, link if you're unfamiliar.
As we all know, multi-billionaires do not have control of our media institutions and are unable to shut down, directly or indirectly, research and investigations into their activities. They do not have the ability to portray themselves in an extremely positive light. Therefore, you are quite right to assume that all these rumors that they are committing acts like our other users implied are frankly entirely false.
I generally take a similar tack when arguing against conspiracists in Russia who argue in the Russian media that Russian oligarchs are committing evil acts in support of the war - this is obviously untrue, as if they were, they would surely be reported in reputable journals and peer-reviewed as you rightfully point out must be done before putting ANY information onto the internet. Any accusations against Putin himself are, similarly, completely bizarre - the Russian media rightfully portrays him as a shining beacon of light. All other "accusations" are from discredited media and crank Telegram and Facebook groups that oppose Putin and the oligarchs, and I am working to try and get them shut down. It's a similar situation in China, as far as I can tell.
Have a great day, and stay classy, my good friend!
Preconceived Prejudice Bias, god dammit you fucking got me too
Well I guess I should apologize for myself and others making the mistake of wanting to see claims being supported by, of all things, evidence. What were we thinking?
*removed externally hosted image*
Apology accepted.
I can't see your image over on Hexbear.
Lmao you didn't even look at the links before dismissing them you dweeb
I believe the proper nomenclature for this individual is "doorknob" as I have demonstrated below through the rigorous scientific thesis of my insult got more upvotes.
What can I say; you've been proven correct
deleted by creator
Thanks for this. I wasn't able to read the wapo article but unfortunately devoted time to the second source. It definitely reads like an undergrad thesis paper written by someone trying to make a very tenuous connection at all costs despite a paucity of solid evidence. Kind of the written version of this:
*removed externally hosted image*
In addition to being a senior undergrad thesis it's kind of shit. I don't know why I spent the time to skim it but I did. I think it can be tossed right out.
These are well documented facts you sentient doorknob.
Regardless of whether or not the commenter or I are sentient doorknobs, "fact" #2 about eugenics is certainly not proven by the strained logic in that paper. The claim is plausible but that's as far as one can take it with that as a source.
I mean fuck billionaires and Gates is as much a ruthless, sociopathic douche-nozzle as any other billionaire.
But he and others like him have done plenty of harmful shit without resorting to using the weakly supported arguments of undergrad thesis papers. I mean c'mon. That's the best we can come up with? Really?
Noted conspiracy rags The Washington Post, Duke University, and The Guardian
I'll cede that the WaPo is a total shit rag, if I'm pressed to it.
It's not a conspiracy if it's not a crime