I think the problem is that people who side with clinton like to do this thing where they cross their arms and say 'there's no evidence for HIllary being a criminal'. This pisses people off because she's already decidedly a criminal, by the FBI's own words and congressional house investigations inquest testimony. But the arm-crossers haven't seen that youtube. They just don't care about actual facts or the law. Social justice > criminal justice and the ends justify the means to the morally corruptible--for example, those who take money from somene on CL to lie to people online in an attempt to 'win hearts and minds'

The problem is not about pizzagate, it's about politicking. People are ignoring factual information on the Clinton side because they don't like Trump--and their dislike of trump is based on no evidence but fear (false evidence appearing real). My suggestion is that if you really want to be fair, find dirt on Trump. But don't ignore the mountains of dirt on Clinton. There's so much incredible dirt on Clinton that she could start her own raised garden bed business and give everyone in america a garden in their front lawns. Which would be a good use of her dirt actually.

No the problem that infuriates people--and this includes people who don't even support trump--as it is a false dilemma fallacy and strawman argument to assume being against clinton is being in support of trump--is that Clinton is a fugutive from the law, and now she's teasing and taunting people over pizzagate, which, and maybe call it something else, like Crimegate or humantraffickinggate or extortiongate or 7thfloorgroupcoupgate

These people defending her are revealing how very little they know about history that's unfolding before their eyes. They don't know how to handle material facts. They don't read. They don't dig. They don't use critical thinking skills. They can't handle context. They can't handle nuance. They can't handle metanarrative. They can't keep up. They have a pathological incapacity to evaluate information for factuality, by playing it against other counternarratives and reading between the lines of BS politicking. They can't read a news story from several different outlets and then use a skeptics tool of weighing it against other such stories, or considering that discreditabilitiy of varioius journalistic outlets versus others that have never been wrong (MSM vs wikileaks)

This is why people are infuriated by these people. They show up, cross their arms and then want you to prove your position, ignoring of course that you already have, fully cited, and they are simply too lazy to do their homework.

Not even a simple search of the sub

NOt even a simple perusal of list of confirmed conspiracies

They try to debunk and deny and disprove and deflect and distract without showing any kind of attempt at being a real skeptic (ie: they are pseudoskeptics).

This is why we call them shills. They might be unpaid, or even interns, or even just tourons who have been inculcated into the cult of pseudoskepticism and antiintellectualism--not sure; but the end result is the same.

They denigrate this sub. Enough of them and and the sub is worthless. So...there you go. That's the point. And that's why we call them out.

But there is value in saying that doesn't work anymore. The way you fight them is by raising the bar and then blocking them. IF reddit had a better block feature or a way of crowd-blocking people heuristically (ie: enough people block someone that they start to be muted / down weighted in comments so that upvoting their comments has an inherent divisor....)