I tend to say to them that we come to different conclusions about the world because we have completely different news sources. If they saw mine, they might come to my conclusions.
Then they say that theirs is official and vetted and you have a chance to point out logical inconsistencies in the MSM messages.
You have to get them to look at direct sources - actual uncut video of what someone said or did.
This implies that your sources are not lying too. There are plenty of grifters on the Q side (like Simon Parks, YouTubers, and others), so if you just say, "my sources are more right than your sources," it doesn't actually prove anything. You need proof that your evidence is actually vetted (PubMed for example).
I tend to say to them that we come to different conclusions about the world because we have completely different news sources. If they saw mine, they might come to my conclusions.
Then they say that theirs is official and vetted and you have a chance to point out logical inconsistencies in the MSM messages.
Great post! And I love using that Maddow story as a redpill icebreaker.
That's what Alex Jones did. Same coin, two sides.
This implies that your sources are not lying too. There are plenty of grifters on the Q side (like Simon Parks, YouTubers, and others), so if you just say, "my sources are more right than your sources," it doesn't actually prove anything. You need proof that your evidence is actually vetted (PubMed for example).