Pretend you have one hour to convince a random normie that the mainstream media is propaganda rather than a collection of well-meaning, objective journalists who sometimes get it wrong but overall try to deliver fair and accurate reporting.
If you fail, you die.
What's your approach?
It's a stupid hypothetical for several reasons but I'm very interested in this topic and I'm curious to hear your thoughts, so I'll ask for a pass on the overly dramatic scenario.
I'm guessing the most common response will be, "It won't work no matter what you do", and fwiw I think that's correct. But for the small group who can be reasoned with, what do you think is the optimal approach?
You can't convince people of anything. Your goal is to feign neutrality while as subtly as possible calling attention to facts and concepts that contradict the regime narrative. This will induce cognitive dissonance in the target that he will resolve by either breaking his conditioning, or by reinforcing it and dismissing you as a bad actor like he was programmed to.
A good one I found for men with daughters. Ask him what he would do if a man tried to follow his daughter into the ladies room. A father's natural response is to say he would intervene. Then ask him "what if the man was wearing a dress?"
Once someone starts questioning the narrative you can lead him down the path toward seeing he was lied to his whole life, and everything is fake and gay.
This is nearly impossible for women because for fertile women questioning the narrative requires them to let go over their unearned egos.
Exactly, people can only change their own minds. So at best you can help them identify you as an ally or an enemy based on their preexisting beliefs. If somebody is on the fence, you can try to make them think you mean well and have good intentions, but that's about it. You can't forcefeed people the truth if they don't want it.
Hey, you are pretty smart.
I don't endorse feigning neutrality, particularly as you probably will be caught if things develop, but most importantly: you should not appear as a fanatic, or someone dead-set in his ways.
You can voice quite strong opinions in ways that make you appear like you are not an ideologue. And you can get a lot of buy-in by just being likeable and funny.
This is why the left rages when anyone makes jokes about them or their sacred cows. They know humor can be an effective way of pointing out the absurdity of their bullshit.
It's not even just that, but also that (successful) humor lowers people's defenses. I've used the joke that Joe Biden said that "who does Vladimir Putin think he is, invading other countries? That's our job!" to great effect.
you would know. or not? because people will lose their shit! if you make fun of the bible here.
this is actually pretty based.
Remember that childhood thing you loved to enjoy? Here's it currently rebooted with today's politics. It got glowing reviews by all the mainstream critics and they said it was better than the original you watched. Do you enjoy it?
This is why the SBI detected Steam group is so successful. You just need to go simple and show people that the things they loved and have fond memories of are being tainted for messaging.
can I show them a video? Because If I can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf8PvDMPgI8
Also that video of all the local news channels repeating the same statement about "misinformation."
That video really woke me up. The fact that they all are word for word, damn near at the same tone and pace, was deeply disturbing
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
Would also work.
That's a good one, I'll add in the Today Show Canoe incident too, and the Weather Channel's hurricane coverage in NC.
Dude, the freaking shorts are the cherry on top there! Seen it before, but it still got me good; absolutely hilarious.
It was an honest mistake! All the other things they say are true. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT!
If I was only 4 hours earlier, I would have the same idea.
Believe it or not, get them to tell you about someone they hate, then look up all of the out of context quotes and defamation that's been written about them. The problem is with normies they simply don't want to hear it and shut you down or dismiss you, meanwhile they want to feel free to spew off their bullshit opinions even if you can prove them wrong on every single point.
In terms of the back end stuff as well I would point towards much of their financing and how all of these people know each other. The evidence of their nepotism within industries. GamerGate is a great route to go down with this because it's so blatant and we only keep getting more and more evidence of their behaviour. If they end up learning how much of western society is about who you know then that just might be what tips the average person over the edge because they realise that ultimately we don't live in a meritocracy and anything they do is futile.
I've thought the same. Find out what they're knowledgeable about and use it to basically force them to have a Gell-Mann effect moment. But I suspect most will still compartmentalize so they can continue believing things like orange man bad.
I feel like people who do the compartmentalisation thing are one of the groups that are beyond saving, they are extremely difficult to talk to and unfortunately a lot of normies do that. Partly the reason why my social life is so shit these days really, when the lockdowns happened peoples' craziness really turned me off socialising with others and now they try to gaslight like it never happened.
Yeah you're probably right. I do think a forced Gell-Mann effect is the most sensible place to start.
I also like people's advice to try and stay clear of politics at the beginning.
It's not their opinions.
If you start citing arcana, then you are losing. But if you say "turns out that journalists give positive coverage to the products of people they're sleeping with" - it's concise, it appeals to people's pre-existing moral compass.
“Have you ever seen someone comment on the Jews and still have their job the following week?”
When they're not Trump supporters, yes.
Like as not I die.
Normies are normies precisely because they are too stupid or willfully ignorant to actually recognize the wickedness of the enemy.
If you give up on 95% of people, then what chance do you possibly have of prevailing?
It's not ninety by any means, that's a ridiculous exaggeration even for you.
And secondly, Christ needed a dozen men. I'd be happy with five percent.
I guess it would depend on who you call 'normie'. Do you have to buy into nearly every media narrative, or is it enough to fall for some?
Also, we're not Christ. You would need more than a dozen (as you seem to admit), or even 5%.
You are not part of we.
We certainly are the 'we' in the statement 'we are not Christ', unless you are even more deranged than you appear.
I'd never suggest otherwise. You are far more repellent to me - and to anyone sane - than I am to you.
You aren't part of the right. And you know it what's more.
I don't base my self-worth on labels, nor do I adjust my views to fit any given tribe. Obviously, you do.
I note that you did not retract how you called into question the statement that "we are not Christ". Apparently, your delusions of grandeur are even greater than everyone thought.
you think to lowly of normies... no wonder no one likes you.
Show them the Gell Mann Amnesia effect quote by Creighton, and then ask the normie what their expertise is.
Then ask them about the veracity of the reporting they see when their area of expertise is covered. Get them to rant about it for a bit.
Finally, ask them why they assume the fucked up coverage they see on their area of expertise is any less fucked up on areas they are not so knowledgeable.
Don't try this with a far left pod person, they are thoroughly inculcated into a cult, and no amount of reasoning will reach them.
Couldn't agree more.
For one thing, he'd have to be a colossal idiot to not notice that all mainstream media besides Fox News (who usually fired their only people worth a damn and are a comically neocon boogeyman) are heavily left-leaning, but that should be relatively easy to show him. I mean come on, unless he's retarded enough to believe that left-leaning is "objective" than that's a pretty brutal indictment there already.
James O'Keefe had a wall of over 300 forced retractions for journos that falsely attacked him and Project Veritas (before the coup), I'd show him that and ask if they were all just "mistakes" and remind him that lawsuits were required to force said retractions.
Then I'd show him what type of entities own the media corporations. How routinely the media corporations lie.
Bring up every major incident they repeatedly and constantly lied about which was proven false (like Russiagate for example), and show the incidents that they didn't cover at all despite being true (e.g. Spygate).
Really a lot of Project Veritas/James O'Keefe videos are good for redpilling. The so-called "journos" often don't even believe what they're pushing. The "nothingburger" meme for example came from a CNN host's mouth.
How stories get buried if they don’t fit a certain narrative. Or how quickly the media is in lock step on certain things. Calling Jan 6 an insurrection is a prime example
Pick a topic where the media narrative is completely false and expose it. Assuming they'll listen to you, this is very easy. Just show a picture of Joe Biden groping a kid. Boom, done. Or ask them how many black people Kyle Rittenhouse shot. Or how much Fentanyl George Floyd was on. Find something they "know" is correct and show them 100% irrefutable evidence that it's false. Once you plant the seed of distrust, nothing can stop it from growing. That's why the left tries to shut down any right-wing ideas at all. The truth is like a lion, set it free and it defends itself.
Re: George Floyd, I'd suggest that you do it more subtly. Instead of: "HEY MR NITWIT, HOW MUCH FENTANYL WAS he on"... do.
Absolute tragedy, that George Floyd case. Fentanyl is destroying this country.
What do you mean, FENTANYL?
There's a greedy multinational that has been getting Americans addicted to opioids to increase its profits. Fentanyl has damaged a lot of people's lives. And George Floyd had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his blood. I saw a video that showed that he couldn't breathe even before anyone touched him.
BULLSHIT! i've seen people like you bring that up only to get shut down and called racists. you wanna try changing people's mind? try showing proof that you can change peoples mind. instead typing up scenarios. and for context i give no fucks how that man died. but goddamn is your approach so goddamn predictable.
I showed my mom that not only did martin luther king not come up with black history month, but also, white people did not shorten black history month to 28 days. both evidence clear as day... bitch walked away still thinking MLK made black history month, and white people gave us blacks only 28 days to celebrate a holiday that was originally a week... in february, that got extended into a month... by black people... who could've picked the month after to have black history month in.
Also, think of all the nazi's and racist here i can't convince, or anyone can on arguments of good faith not to be shit heels to jews, and women. and their locked stepped in it. if you find what i would do here to be annoying to them. why would you waste a normies perfectly good time. convincing them of shit they wouldn't believe in anyways?
Interesting hypothetical, and I'll think about it and come back with a better answer if something occurs to me.
First, what you absolutely do not want to do; bring up anything political, or more specifically partisan, as the prime focus. It's hard not to at least touch on them, but don't make it the main focus. Avoid things like left v right, Covid, race/gender (unless you know they're open to it, in which case this can be a great in, actually.) It triggers combativeness, and you won't convince them. Also (sadly) probably avoid statistics, unless you know the person you're talking to is good at understanding them, or enjoys them. This should be a great way to convince people, but ends up flying over the heads of many - maybe most - average people...which is a massive condemnation on your average person.
I think one good line to run is about repetition of propaganda. This can be something like your "this is a threat to our democracy," or the Ron Paul smears...this one is actually great, since one of the most well known compilations is from Jon Stewart, so probably more palatable for normies. Also ask the person you're trying to convince when they started to become concerned about "mis/mal/disinformation," as that's a pretty new concept.
Also, I said to avoid charged issues like politics or race as the main focus, but playing "spot the white person" in ads can be a real eye opener, for people who haven't been paying attention. Heck, not specifically racial, but a component; do what Socratic mentioned about bringing up the past; just play old entertainment for them. What do you know...not everything was miscegenation, and most people were white.
But I think something like the Ron Paul thing, that just highlights how blatantly dishonest and repetitive they are is a great entrance. It's impossible to argue that was unintentional. They'll still find someway to try to downplay it (probably try to blame the right exclusively and acting like that would make the argument invalid), but you might have at least gotten in the door enough to meet the requirements of convincing them there's at least some organized mainstream media propaganda.
Or you could play them a Rachel Maddow compilation. Even if you die, you make them suffer with you.
Wise. A lot of people have some sort of emotional commitment to left or right. They will sooner switch their positions 180 degrees than keep their positions and move from left to right, or vice versa. In my lifetime, I've seen the mainstream left go from pro-Wall Street, anti-war, pro-free speech to the exact opposite, and pretty much the inverse move from the right.
I also encounter a lot of people who, if you look at their political commitments, seem far-left, and hate the Orange Man, but if you look at their actual positions, don't like war, immigration or LGBTP. If you force them to choose between their positions and their politics they'll choose their politics. But if you gentle nudge them and make them confront their contradictions on their own... while I can't say that I have tried, I think that would at least be less certain to fail.
May be an American thing, where this is far more polarized than in Europe. Covid is not exactly a subject here, but I do intend to bring up all the false information pushed with absolute certainty by politicians, media and so called scientists... not as proof of anything except that they can be wrong and often are.
May also be. I know people who are far to the left of your Democrats, who don't like the race/gender/LGBTP BS, and proactively ridicule it without me even bringing it up.
A lot of normies will not notice, because they really are colorblind.
This is rich coming from you. you're a bi man, who wishes to restrict LGBTQ rights. because... reasons. you're also an atheist. who believes anything bad humans have done through out history... is atheists fault, the non-religious. and we need religion to fix all that because, reasons... you yourself are a walking contradiction.
Oh shut the fuck up you racist, mixbreed hating piece of shit. no different than the goddamn nazi's on this site.
I have to support grooming?
Your arguments are so weak that you have to resort to things you made up.
Who said that? i'm also bi, and don't like what the LGBTQ group is doing. but your aim is to strip rights. and rightfully put all gays back in the closet... ya asshole. and we had a talk about how you think all of the worlds current problem is caused by atheists. and by going back to religion being everywhere. it'll stop the wokeness because you said only the woke were atheist. while the non-woke were religious.
Name those 'rights'.
Oh, backtracking already? You said all the problems in world history.
marriage equality i believe. and how our current society couldn't survive the onslaught of pregnant men or whatever. when in the old days of religion, we barely survived that.
Why do you use biased language? Why can't you be forthright about what you believe in.
And I don't think I ever called for same-sex marriage to be outlawed. For that matter, it's not a right, so your claim that I want to 'strip rights' would be false even if this were proven.
How is this stripping rights?
Convincing anyone of anything is rather hard... but for me i try to show them the evidence, guage their reaction, and see what dumbass counter points thay have. usually they help me see fault in my own arguments. other times their rebuttals are just dumbass and reactionary. however in your example you brought up no less than 3 times not to bring up race only to talk about race. namely spot the white person. you do know leading with ads not having enough white people in it. and using the past to show how there were more white people... might actually harm your cause right? fuck man i'm not even white and even i know that's a bad idea. what worked for you! may not work for others.
Start with Epstein and the ridiculous nature of his 'suicide'. Then that the MSM somehow pretended the story or his John's didn't exist, when it should be the juiciest ratings bait ever.
Then weave in his ties to Mossad, and their known mode of operations. AKA leverage, kompromat, extortion. Jizz's dad was a rich, Israeli spy.
Start piling on who funds MSM. 75% pharma, 25% MIC. Three sacred cows on social media. Safe & effective, endless war, and ignore the tiny hat cabal.
Or bring up JFK.
Most normies are more convinced that his death was a conspiracy than I am (though most people here would call me a normie, or a Bolshevik or whatever).
For people "who can be reasoned with", I believe you have to undermine their trusted news sources. If they broaden their news or do research on their own they'll convince themselves.
The first step is for them to acknowledge that their news is incredibly biased.
For NPR listeners I ask them if they can think of a single person working for NPR they think even might be a closet conservative (there aren't any). In general, you can point out only 3.4% of journalists are Republicans, down from 25.7% 50 years ago. If news is not biased and is reporting fairly, why did Republican trust drop from 70% in 2016 to under 35% today?
Now they think "sure my news is biased, that's because conservatives are bad dumb people so bias is good, responsible reporting". Then you show their news is not good bias, it's garbage bias.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good choice because it's very concise; it's not a complicated issue or set of facts. In their original reporting, did they even attempt to call the repair shop owner? Was it responsible to report it "sounds like" Russia? Did they issue a correction on their reporting? NPR is a great case study, with their original reporting being hysterical and comical in hindsight. And of course NPR in October 2022 removed this embarrassing post of them calling it a "waste of time" and "distraction", why would they delete that?
It won't change their mind because they'll refuse to look at clear evidence their news sources are garbage, but now any time they bring up anything call their news garbage if they haven't corrected the laptop story yet. Just keep bringing it up over and over.
Ya know you could've just written this instead of wasting your time writing this wall of text.
Over time it will if you keep hammering it. Or it'll get them off your back at least.
I didn't downvote you btw idk you must have a comment stalker :P
pay that no mind. people stalk me because they ain't me because they hate me.
Matt Orfalea videos. Let his compilations of the media's constantly shifting "truth" do the work.
https://youtu.be/e3F3owL3iQo
https://youtu.be/t-OqyUtDar4
https://youtu.be/-s5DYknp9cc
https://youtu.be/Sj6-QDVYbv8
https://youtu.be/GOYQeIrVdYo
https://youtu.be/eKCkeCXIHTc
This is just a sample of the constant lies.
Thanks for sharing these links. Somehow I haven't heard of this guy. I'll definitely give them a watch.
Orf videos are great. I really want to show this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5DYknp9cc
to anyone who complains about Trump 'lying'.
I'd start by showing them that William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the Nobel Prize for Medicine, then show how they've been slandered in the media ("horse paste").
Do I know this person? Can I ask some questions to get to know them to better tailor my approach?
I think too many people try to be "objective and neutral" about these things, focusing on just the raw politics and problem itself, which is why many act like the Wokes and Liberals are just these unapproachable, unchanging force.
Many are, but if you actually pay attention and listen to what they say to get a feel for their mind you can easily find ways to get them to drop their guard and listen to things completely anathemic to their beliefs. And if done persuasively enough, begin a change away from it.
Basically, work in sales niggers. You'll learn how easy it is to convince anyone of anything.
nah, you couldn't convince a junkie to take a needle full of crack! let alone defuse a normie, or god forbid a lefty. and even if you do. you just proved humans are fucking malleable. we have no spine's, and can be convinced of anything. so ironically, you would want them to break alittle less easily. to show that they atleast have convictions. instead of just bots who will go along with whatever anyone says.
Ok bro.
Big if with that "can be reasoned with"....
For me it would be certain interviews, most news are too distant for the normies to believe you on most things, it's just one person's word against another.
But interviews you can point out biased actions, a recent example was that an interviewer was asking the "far right party leader" questions but always started to talk over the interviewee when he gave perfectly reasonable answers.
Stuff like this and loaded questions, difference in handling depending on what the news are talking about as well.
Basically actions of the news rather than misinformation is where I'd try my luck
PS: COVID discussions would also be a quite good one to point this out
If the Biden administration didn't remove the emperor's clothes, nothing will. The media has blatantly lied to cover his actions. They insisted the man didn't check his watch multiple times. People saw live video, watched the replies saw him check his watch multiple times. But the media claimed the opposite for days until the public outcry was large enough they pushed and claimed it was inconclusive.
40%+ support Biden, so clearly, the Emperor is still wearing still too much.
So? replace joe biden with trump and it's the same thing.
means virtually nothing fuck wit. when you're in a position of power lies become truth. do you really think it would be different if it was trump and the news covered for him? then you jackasses would be no different than the normies.
Of course it's different. Look at the Steele dossier coverage, the out of context grab them by the pussy, the removing the context of good people on both sides.
Yeah that's my point... kinda. let's say DJ said all women are retarded. and the right wing media covers up any mentioning of him saying that. were you not around for the whole twitter censorship thing? both sides of the political isle, paid twitter to censor information, that made either side look bad. it was just twitter was more left leaning biased, then right leaning. so far more right leaning stuff got censored then left leaning. how can you be so blind?
Do you think the media that is broadcasted in China is propaganda? Do you think the media that is broadcasted in Russia is propaganda? Do you think the media that is broadcasted in North Korea is propaganda? Do you think the media that is broadcasted in Qatar is propaganda? Then why don't you think the media broadcasted in your country is propaganda?
All good points! so what do you tell them in leu of this? that anything that opposes the media is also telling the truth? doing so would just perpetuate the lie, that "trusted sources" are always right, and to oppose them makes you an idiot. kinda like how you guys say if you become an atheist, you eventually fall right back into another form of religion, right?
Once you understand what the propaganda is trying to tell you and for what reason, it becomes easier to see what is and isn't propaganda. You can't see it yet because you don't recognize what is and isn't propaganda. Once you see it for what it truly is then you can tell what sources are legitimate and what sources are just pushing the propaganda. And sometimes the propaganda tells the truth, it's not all lies. Sometimes those who aren't peddling propaganda tell lies also. This all becomes easier to evaluate though once you can see what is clearly designed as propaganda though.
this is both retarded and based. so i'll give you a - scale meaning i won't down vote or upvote. you're very lucky.
I will spend 5 seconds not bothering and then the rest of the time with a pint or two. Sounds like a good way to go.
No point in arguing with a zealot.
but... all of you guys here are, zealots...
Loose plan:
Find out what they know about the world and what their mental model is. Eg is the news real because journalists are on the scene, or because they have "credentials" or because it's checked by editors so the multiple layers give it "truthiness"
Dismantle those pre suppositions and then get them to state and verbally take the position that it's not as real as it was at the start of the session.
Then move onto asking them what would make something "true" and get them to think about the issue and rebuild a new mental model. Once they've done this recompare their new model to what exists and highlight the gulf between reality and their new mental model.
Reinforce the primacy of their new mental model by comparing the thought they've put into that, compared to the model that had before that had no thought into it and was given to them by the media. Which they now know is propaganda. This is to prevent backsliding.
Praise them for thinking through an issue and creating a new model from scratch as most people aren't able to do that.
Good. however... this form of thinking can apply to anyone. by which i mean your model. for instance. what if you had a view a negative on gay people. i then showed you some decent evidence bla bla bla, you compared models, and found gay people are completely normal, or whatever your stance is on any given subject... my point being is. rather you get your information from the news, or some right wing dude off of youtube... check their facts! yeah the news can lie, and so can your sources. so it's always important that you look behind your own sources, and people. to not get bamboozled. least you're just the controlled opposition.
All you can do is plant the seed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
Then according to the hypothetical, I die. But eventually, years later, the random normie may sober up.
so... fucking pointless. then why did the op make this? just seems like a right wing circle jerk to be honest. kinda like something a leftie would do dot dot dot.
Tell them that I have an hour to convince them that the mainstream media is propaganda or I'm dead.
Then say "Happy life I'm off to get drunk and fuck! See ya amigo and when you see my dead body in an hour a one minute, remember that the mainstream media are propagandists and there's no way to convince others until they see your corpse!"
Then I'd spend the next 59 minutes sucking on beer and fucking ear-to-ear.
so your drunken corpse will convince normies that the news is biased... good to know.
You are already a drunken corpse to those with power just now.
Remove the power and stop "thinking" like them.
The rest will kick in like the biology of girls being born at peak just now.
It all as a reason, and it is beyond what we call reason.
You can typically change their mind with the application of high velocity lead.
Ah yes, kill anyone who thinks differently then you. then i say we should all kill people who don't trust gay people around kids. anyone who thinks blacks or non-whites are dangerous. and anyone who hates women. show of hands?
That's an easy one. The biggest lie that anyone has repeated was that it was the right after video games in the 90s.
The three big names starting that nonsense was Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Who as you know, are giant right wing extremists.
Wait, they're left leaning democrats? Huh. I guess people lie about something until the lie is accepted.
Use this information as you will.
Cool, but christian fundamentalist (regardless of political association) opposed video games, rap/rock music aswell. so it was more so establishment types in position of power, trying to ruin anything fun. if you're going to lie lie right.
In one hour? You'd die. It's not possible. You can make a valiant effort, and you should try your best, but it is like Kuhn. People believe in a given paradigm, for example that the media is honest and objective, until there are so many anomalies that it's impossible to continue believing in it.
To my shame, I'll have to confess that I used to believe that the mainstream media tries to be objective and honest - and in fact, I thought that Gamergate was a hate movement because I believed what the MSM said. Even when I discovered the truth, I thought "OK, so they're wrong about this, but it's an honest mistake." Those of you who have always known reality, on this subject, will probably not be able to understand what it is like for people who do not.
However, this is a fantastic post. I've often wondered what the best way of persuasion towards normies is. While such an enormous switch is impossible in an hour, you can make people take baby-steps. If you recognize that the media is biased, then it's more likely that you'll admit that it's intentionally biased, and when you admit that, it is more likely that you will admit that they are intentionally biased - perhaps even against people you do not like. Saying Z is easier when you've said A through X. It's impossible when you've not gotten someone to say even A.
I have to deal with people who believe the European propaganda media. Admittedly, it's not quite as much as the American media, but it's close - and they get nearly all their "information" about America from American media. There are people who know nothing about America, know no Americans, let alone Trump supporters, all of whose so called information comes from the media, who are absolutely convinced that the alternative reality painted by the media is the same as the truth. I can't persuade them that the Orange Man isn't that bad, nor will I try, but I can persuade them that the media have smeared him with the whole Russia nonsense. And I can remind them that the same media he believes unconditionally also spread lies about WMDs.
Your issue, and ours in general, is that we think that people believe things because they think they are true. This is most definitely not the case. People do not read newspapers because they want to know what's going on, but because they want the illusion that they know what's going on. People do not voice opinions because they believe these opinions are somehow better, but because they believe these opinions will increase their social status.
Shit man, going by our conversations you wouldn't be able to convince a fish to evolve to a land mammal, let alone convince anyone of shit, in baby steps. sure your post is well meaning, and not dumb. but like with so many commenters here... what's the replacement? are you teaching normies to trust the news 10% of the time? some of the time? or take everything with a grain of salt? all i'm hearing, is news is bad... and that's it. no critical thinking outside of news bad. and follow my sources, which isn't completely biased i swear. try understanding that, you EU faggot.
oh so many options, but the golden video is "this is dangerous to our democracy"
oh cool, someone repeating narratives... it's not like right wing, or the left wing do this aswell. it's only the big bad news. and never my side. what a 1,000 I.Q play their buddy.
I won't die because if I fail to convince a random normie in 5 minutes it's because they're not normies.
Edit: My pitch
Me: You watch CNN? Fox News?
Normie: I watch (channel name here)
Me: Are you aware they're just as agenda based as (other channel name here)
Normie: Yeah, of course, duh!
if they say "no I don't believe that"
Me: Think about it for a second.
one second later:
Normie: Yeah, of course, derp!
so you can't convince anyone of anything
so you're saying mainstream media isn't propaganda?
You watch CNN? or Fox News?
No, i'm saying his convincing skills are ass! not that the news don't lie.
It depends on the person, older normies are somehow easier to convince, more if they are male. Younger ones usually won't care, or will agree with you and say nothing can be done about it. And when it's about female normies, you need to tackle something that hurts to get them through the emotional side, and even then it's hard.
boy it's hard convincing normies, to be assholes like you. kinda like when i try to get people not to hate jews, non-whites, and women. oh wait... i don't! outside of mocking them. so why are you trying to convince normies of anything?
Those videos of various local news stations all repeating the same line is a good start. Then bring up the easily confirmed fact that only a handful of men own most of the MSM. After that, I'd bring up a few famous news stories that were based on lies and prove it, preferably ones that are sure to trigger the emotions of whoever im talking to. Finally, id bring up the ties various newscasters have to the cia and other government agencies
All good. up until you said.
Cool... but if you do that. they'll just move the goal post to the times the news didn't lie about high profile cases... putting you back at square one. also, what does only a handful of men owning the news have to do with anything? if you're dealing with a lefty not a normie. they'd wet their pants with soy. if you're dealing with a normie they might find that weird... but most will think nothing of it. you guys aren't very creative on convincing people. no wonder your alone.
Lol
That collection of news channel reporters repeating that line, this is bad for democracy. Watching that would at least make one question something.
question what? that people with a shred of power will repeat a line because NPC applies to both mainstream, and unofficial news sources?
I'm die. Thank you forever.
Honestly if they haven't red-pilled themselves at this point just by paying even a minimal amount of attention they're a lost cause.
The globalist uniparty is all but rubbing it in people's faces these days.
Most people are aware that the media is corrupt, lying and propagandistic. The problem is that they believe they're immune to propaganda and that the media they consume is done so critically and therefore it becomes irrelevant.
The other problem is convincing people in which way the media is propagandistic, because a lot of die hard leftists truly believe the media is right-wing and pro-trump. And no just some media, they think outlets like CNN and MSNBC are pro-trump.
It's not that "it won't work", it's that it's irrelevant if you do. Because again, most people agree that the media is fucked. The problem is they think they don't fall for the lies when they continually and routinely do.
alright this is pretty based.
Based on your history around here, you're one of the people who's terminally susceptible to propaganda that thinks they're immune. The amount of times you fall back on establishment talking points is truly astounding. You are nearly the exact person I am talking about.
How so? and every time i believe in your "sources"... i have to look into 20 others, that prove it was lying or misrepresenting the facts.
Damn, you're thirsty for attention when you're trawling back for comments from weeks ago.
no not really.
Any normal person would have let it go. But we both know you're mentally ill, so I guess that does end up excluding you from the list of "normal people".
I guess it does...