> But I think the greater commonality between the cases is that the "very difficult to believe events" turned out in the end to be false. The cases have litera

> But I think the greater commonality between the cases is that the "very difficult to believe events" turned out in the end to be false. The cases have literally nothing to do with each other. That Cecilia Kang has authored falsehoods about both changes nothing about the facts of either. > but my conclusion from the parts that I saw was that it's still extremely unlikely that Podesta is involved in pedophilia, and quite unlikely that any of the other named parties close to him are either. It's easy to just scratch the surface and conclude that there's nothing to see here. > I think the most likely explanation is that the supposed points of evidence are misunderstandings due to massive cultural differences. In particular, I think the correlation between all the points of evidence you raise and the actual behavior of pedophiles is very low, and the conjunction of 100 such points is still overwhelmed by one's prior beliefs. Except that the pedophile ring theory explains every single data point perfectly. Your theory doesn't explain anything. > I still have (barely) enough faith in the world to believe that if Reddit's interpretation is true, the truth will eventually come out. I hoped I was wrong. I don't think I am :(