Hey man. I'd love to hear it. Typically, my stories go like this. They're irate about my position on the jab. Then, I go on a fcking full on microbiology lecture replete with numbers and citations. Only medical journals from the NlH and what not, because common sense isn't so common. They realize I actually know what I'm talking about before going home to hopefully re-evaluate their entire life. I figure that's what they do when they realize all their talking points have been, effectively, countered.
Do not back down from these individuals. Stand up. But peacefully. The moment you lose it, the moment all your points get ignored, because now you appeal to their confirmation bias about "alt-right fascistic neonazis white supremacist", regardless of what ethnicity, political ideology, or cultural background you're actually from.
Most annoying thing about these people is they only need one point you can't fully counter to think in their mind they "won", because winning is what matters to them - not truth. If there's a single point you can't disprove using articles they approve of, your point in their mind is moot. But that's why you go for 110%, not 99%.
Hey man. I'd love to hear it. Typically, my stories go like this. They're irate about my position on the jab. Then, I go on a fcking full on microbiology lecture replete with numbers and citations. Only medical journals from the NlH and what not, because common sense isn't so common. They realize I actually know what I'm talking about before going home to hopefully re-evaluate their entire life. I figure that's what they do when they realize all their talking points have been, effectively, countered.
Do not back down from these individuals. Stand up. But peacefully. The moment you lose it, the moment all your points get ignored, because now you appeal to their confirmation bias about "alt-right fascistic neonazis white supremacist", regardless of what ethnicity, political ideology, or cultural background you're actually from.
Most annoying thing about these people is they only need one point you can't fully counter to think in their mind they "won", because winning is what matters to them - not truth. If there's a single point you can't disprove using articles they approve of, your point in their mind is moot. But that's why you go for 110%, not 99%.
LOL, full microbiology lecture. This is me exactly. Actual research (us) vs headline research (them).
Haha yeah, exactly. They read the title before the complacency about being "right" gets to them.