all 4 comments

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Would they not agree that some conspiracies are true, probably in their mind saying the russia hoax was true, or that Trump had a conspiracy to do a coup de tat to keep the presidency? But they would say most conspiracy theories are false so we shouldn't consider them unless the MSM says so.

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Even if they believe in false conspiracies, it still means they're open to the possibility, which makes them more likely to look at the evidence regarding other conspiracies. The examples you mention are very polarized topics and therefore don't promise anything good, but you can remind them of the Snowden revelations, or the fact that Epstein didn't kill himself, and use that as a segue into more difficult topics. The latter is very important. Epstein was kept in one of the most closely guarded prisons, and yet the camera was turned off when Epstein disappeared, which is almost always done deliberately. The implications of that are tremendous, and at the same time, this is something people admit. The guards must have been bribed. That's what Epstein's friends are capable of and that points to something deeply corrupt in the system. Everyone's aware that there's some level of corruption, but this goes beyond that, and the only reason people don't realize it is because they don't reflect on the facts that are already there.

Anyway, this isn't entirely relevant to the discussion. I'm not proposing people use the term "conspiracy denialism" toward normies, but instead among their fellow truth seekers. If a normie stumbles upon it, he might take conspiracy research more seriously.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well you can't use logic and reason to convince these folks, they're not conscious so they can't think of higher level topics. Most people think there was something fishy going on with epstein, but they'll think in terms of Trump getting him killed or getting him free because they were in cahoots. If you then say well there's no evidence of that they'll say ok so what? They can't consider implications unless an MSM article discusses the implications.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


After the first time, a second time is a coincidence, the third time makes the pattern. Denying the pattern keeps you stunted in fantasy.