I think so too. Both write-ups are pretty detailed. Her write-up indicates that she's been paying attention to what he's been saying. Usually, a normie will check out mentally and not absorb a lot of what's being said.
Just read what she wrote. There’s no need to provide this much detail on the “conspiracy” and no detail on the “deboooonk” if you weren’t trying to red pill. The lack of detail in the deboooonk is purposeful so that the only argument you are seeing that is actually supported in her narrative is the red pill one. It’s sleight of hand to get around the mods. Apparently the mods busted her “husband’s” response and deleted it for wrongspeak lulz…
American History X does a similar thing where in the first half of the movie the main character gives convincing reasons for his beliefs. Then, the supposed debunking of his beliefs is so vague that it seems like a glossed-over montage. It shows him reading books but doesn’t mention the books’ ideas that he supposedly finds more convincing than what he was saying in the beginning.
I went back and read through it again and you are so right. (the mods there nuked the post.)
My husband mentioned something about a cricket factory and how they're trying to get more people to be okay with eating crickets since the government is about to make some major changes to our regular food supply. Literally all the talking points are the same. Where exactly is your SO getting this information, it must be the same online source as my husband.
Looks like the husband and wife are trying to red pill people.
Very slowly.
I think so too. Both write-ups are pretty detailed. Her write-up indicates that she's been paying attention to what he's been saying. Usually, a normie will check out mentally and not absorb a lot of what's being said.
Could be! If she says anything positive about his beliefs she will be kicked from the platform
That's kind of what I thought. If she wasn't trying to red pill people, then she must not have read what she copy/pasted what her husband wrote.
Just read what she wrote. There’s no need to provide this much detail on the “conspiracy” and no detail on the “deboooonk” if you weren’t trying to red pill. The lack of detail in the deboooonk is purposeful so that the only argument you are seeing that is actually supported in her narrative is the red pill one. It’s sleight of hand to get around the mods. Apparently the mods busted her “husband’s” response and deleted it for wrongspeak lulz…
American History X does a similar thing where in the first half of the movie the main character gives convincing reasons for his beliefs. Then, the supposed debunking of his beliefs is so vague that it seems like a glossed-over montage. It shows him reading books but doesn’t mention the books’ ideas that he supposedly finds more convincing than what he was saying in the beginning.
she uses the phrase "what I perceive to be mental illness", instead of just calling it a mental illness. great stuff.
Reads like a script… dumb
I went back and read through it again and you are so right. (the mods there nuked the post.)