This is a prime example of how the news misleads the public. If you read this headline and continued browsing you’d think “wow Putin is such a dictator that he had her murdered”
Quite the opposite. They’re desperate to label Putin as the bad guy for invading Ukraine while simultaneously covering up the presence of neo-nazi’s, evidence of US-owned bio-lab’s and deep state money laundering
Yeah I seen this posted on Australian news sites presented the same way bet you people just read the headline.
I think I know why they flood the media with click bait content all the time.
It's so they can distract people into thinking their article is just gonna be garbage and no one will bother reading it and just go along with the article.
She has the bobble head of an anorexic and is involved with a psychopath. Could it be she's actually not so credible in her evaluation of Putin's character?
We really need to stop mass labeling everyone a "pedo guy", just to increase our own confirmation bias.
It's rather annoying, childish and neutralizes the severity of labeling someone a pedophile. It's also like crying wolf. The Anti-Q people whos content I watch have actually made a great point about this.
Outsiders have started looking at the various Q chapters and said things like "Those people call everyone a pedophile. You can't take them seriously when they accuse anyone anymore".
Outsiders have started looking at the various Q chapters and said things like "Those people call everyone a pedophile. You can't take them seriously when they accuse anyone anymore".
Yes. They have.
If this was purely an anti-pedophile movement, Q would be a household name. People love hating pedophiles. It’s one of the few areas where evil is easy to see and there are no questions about being on the right side.
It becomes suspicious to outsiders when almost every famous person who has ever said anything less than a full-throated defense of Donald Trump is apparently not just a pedophile, but a member of a Cabal of pedophiles and can only be brought down by a Trump-associated team of super-agents fighting a secret war.
And that war just happens to have everyone politically-aligned with Trump on one side, and literally everyone else on the other. No intelligent, reasonable, anti-Trump people exist. They are all secretly defending a pedophilia network.
THAT is where Q loses people. Especially when Q people themselves seem generally confused as to who is actually on their side.
Attacking people who dissent against the Q narrative as pedophile apologists only ensures that this place becomes an echo chamber, and most people aren’t going to have the kind of patience or thick skin that I do when it comes to the accusations leveled at nonbelievers by some users here.
Don't miss the forest for the trees now. What you're saying has validity to it, but I was specifically referring to the person in my initial reply who made the outrageous claim that the ex-boyfriend of the model MUST have been affiliated with Pedophilia 🙄
A random Russian civilian who was dating an adult WOMAN of legal age, who ends up killing her, suddenly becomes a pedophile, why??
Because it supports our narrative that powerful people in authority in the highest places in society secretly engage in pedophilia. That's why she said that. And that is what I'm criticizing.
I saw that as a headline somewhere, and thought the same thing, that it was another "Putin hit job". Journalism, at least as far as what is widely distributed, is worse than dead.
This is a prime example of how the news misleads the public.
Yes, it is. I’m glad to see this posted. The easiest way to tell if someone has read the article is to… actually read the article and see if it says what they think the headline implies.
The problem, of course, is getting people to read past the headline whenever they believe it is a small piece of a large aggregate that supports their position.
Because when they believe that, defeating a single piece of evidence this way doesn’t do much. Then all you’ve done is knock out one small piece of evidence from what they believe is a large pile.
Hopefully, the goal is to change the research behavior so that they can read sources and debunk stuff themselves, even when the stuff agrees with them, so they can evaluate the whole pile leave themselves only with the strongest sources worth addressing. But there are a lot of people reading a lot of garbage, and that’s kind of a never ending battle.
This is a prime example of how the news misleads the public. If you read this headline and continued browsing you’d think “wow Putin is such a dictator that he had her murdered”
Quite the opposite. They’re desperate to label Putin as the bad guy for invading Ukraine while simultaneously covering up the presence of neo-nazi’s, evidence of US-owned bio-lab’s and deep state money laundering
Just, wow.
Holy Propaganda Batman... I'm stickying this so our community knows to be on the lookout. Please continue to point these out when you find them!
Yeah I seen this posted on Australian news sites presented the same way bet you people just read the headline. I think I know why they flood the media with click bait content all the time. It's so they can distract people into thinking their article is just gonna be garbage and no one will bother reading it and just go along with the article.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ex-boyfriend was involved with either pedophilia or antifa. The timing seems too coincidental
She has the bobble head of an anorexic and is involved with a psychopath. Could it be she's actually not so credible in her evaluation of Putin's character?
We really need to stop mass labeling everyone a "pedo guy", just to increase our own confirmation bias.
It's rather annoying, childish and neutralizes the severity of labeling someone a pedophile. It's also like crying wolf. The Anti-Q people whos content I watch have actually made a great point about this.
Outsiders have started looking at the various Q chapters and said things like "Those people call everyone a pedophile. You can't take them seriously when they accuse anyone anymore".
Yes. They have.
If this was purely an anti-pedophile movement, Q would be a household name. People love hating pedophiles. It’s one of the few areas where evil is easy to see and there are no questions about being on the right side.
It becomes suspicious to outsiders when almost every famous person who has ever said anything less than a full-throated defense of Donald Trump is apparently not just a pedophile, but a member of a Cabal of pedophiles and can only be brought down by a Trump-associated team of super-agents fighting a secret war.
And that war just happens to have everyone politically-aligned with Trump on one side, and literally everyone else on the other. No intelligent, reasonable, anti-Trump people exist. They are all secretly defending a pedophilia network.
THAT is where Q loses people. Especially when Q people themselves seem generally confused as to who is actually on their side.
Attacking people who dissent against the Q narrative as pedophile apologists only ensures that this place becomes an echo chamber, and most people aren’t going to have the kind of patience or thick skin that I do when it comes to the accusations leveled at nonbelievers by some users here.
Don't miss the forest for the trees now. What you're saying has validity to it, but I was specifically referring to the person in my initial reply who made the outrageous claim that the ex-boyfriend of the model MUST have been affiliated with Pedophilia 🙄
A random Russian civilian who was dating an adult WOMAN of legal age, who ends up killing her, suddenly becomes a pedophile, why??
Because it supports our narrative that powerful people in authority in the highest places in society secretly engage in pedophilia. That's why she said that. And that is what I'm criticizing.
Oh ya, russian antifa. Got it.
I saw that as a headline somewhere, and thought the same thing, that it was another "Putin hit job". Journalism, at least as far as what is widely distributed, is worse than dead.
Yes, it is. I’m glad to see this posted. The easiest way to tell if someone has read the article is to… actually read the article and see if it says what they think the headline implies.
The problem, of course, is getting people to read past the headline whenever they believe it is a small piece of a large aggregate that supports their position.
Because when they believe that, defeating a single piece of evidence this way doesn’t do much. Then all you’ve done is knock out one small piece of evidence from what they believe is a large pile.
Hopefully, the goal is to change the research behavior so that they can read sources and debunk stuff themselves, even when the stuff agrees with them, so they can evaluate the whole pile leave themselves only with the strongest sources worth addressing. But there are a lot of people reading a lot of garbage, and that’s kind of a never ending battle.