Vet the questions really well. I've seen a lot of people posting questions that were already debunked. If she has those to cherry pick, then she probably will.
Example: Why do you call babies hotards?
But it at least very much so appears that jimmycommet and joewills are calling each other hotards, not the baby.
And let's even say that you are right. Let's say that they were calling the baby a hotard, and just signaling each other too look at it. It can still be easily construed as them calling each other hotard. And that it was the interviewer would do. Any weakness they spot, they will hone in on it and go for the throat.
Also, jimmycommet comments #themostexpensiveaccessory in relation to the baby post, as if babies have a higher value for their sickness than older kids. There is no context to be provided for the #hotard instagram.
I don't know. I don't talk to people that way, I don't understand it. But in the back and forth, they are addressing each other. It looks like he gets called hotard, and then he says hotard, then specifies afterwards that it is @ the other person. Even if we agree that in general there is a lot of suspicious shit and a lot of smoke with these people, if someone were to hone in on that specific example, like tunnel-vision it, they could easily convince people that it's just back and forth and not directed at the baby, because that is what it looks like. So if someone is like "ASK HIM WHY HE CALLS BABIES HOTARDS" then the interviewer can cherry pick that, hone in on it, and be like, "See, they are calling each other hotards," and the whole investigation is successfully smeared.
I grew up with extremely manipulative, dysfunctional, abusive parents. Both of them. I know how the enemy thinks. I might not be the brightest person, and I might not be very useful in most regards. But damn do I know how the enemy thinks. I'm just trying to give an advanced warning.
I'm confident that most of you got this, just nervous and encouraging to push the really vetted, solid stuff.
For what it's worth I'm speaking from the experience of someone who has lost in pizzagate arguments because I'm fairly run of the mill. Good intentions but not the smartest, sometimes too emotional and not objective enough. And I've seen lots of people out there like me.
I know many of you are top notch because I've watched you work here well before I finally joined. Please push the most solid stuff you have. There will be people like me, and also people pushing for debunked stuff on purpose, so it'll be coming from two fronts: accidentally by goodhearted sorts, and on purpose by people seeking to undermine.
Sentiment agreed.
It comes down to this. You don't HAVE to believe its real, you don't HAVE to have a firm opinion when discussing with others. You simply have to present troubling data and ask what they make of it. And there is no shortage of material. Have a look at this for inspiration https://twitter.com/MoMeetsAisha/status/809353798607048704
Another tact is to talk about the reality of elite ped rings and use various known examples first. Then pose the question if this is known to be proven fact, and was covered up by complicit media and State actors - then we have to question why the media is trying to say PizzaGate is debunked and Fake News, without EVER presenting any of the troubling information which caused the phenomenon to take off. Its unprecedented cover up on a huge orchestrated campaign across the whole mainstream media. That to me is the biggest red flag, and if people can acknowledge THAT FACT before even getting into investigating PizzaGate, then you will have won half the battle in opening otherwise closed minds.
I would say anything that has passed the shill test. I've had a few rough rounds with shills myself, but it helps to debunk and prune stuff where I wasn't objective enough to do it myself. If they can attack it, then generally they do, and aggressively. If it hasn't been challenged, then it's probably good to go.
view the rest of the comments →
SheSaidDestroy ago
Vet the questions really well. I've seen a lot of people posting questions that were already debunked. If she has those to cherry pick, then she probably will.
Example: Why do you call babies hotards?
But it at least very much so appears that jimmycommet and joewills are calling each other hotards, not the baby.
Need to really be on the ball right now.
reasonedandinformed ago
The "hotard" reference is real. He posted the picture of the baby and wrote #hotard in the comments: https://i.sli.mg/2FyXrV.png
SheSaidDestroy ago
And let's even say that you are right. Let's say that they were calling the baby a hotard, and just signaling each other too look at it. It can still be easily construed as them calling each other hotard. And that it was the interviewer would do. Any weakness they spot, they will hone in on it and go for the throat.
SheSaidDestroy ago
Look at the whole thread of comments.
joewills calls jimmycommet a hotard jimmycommet says hotad jimmycomment says @ joewills to clarify he is calling her a hotard
That is exactly what the interviewer would point out if they honed in on that.
You can be 99% right, but they will find the 1% where you are wrong, and hone in on it aggressively. It will be that 1% that they show/tell others.
SIMONBARROW ago
Why would they call each other "hotard"? It makes no sense in the context.
reasonedandinformed ago
Also, jimmycommet comments #themostexpensiveaccessory in relation to the baby post, as if babies have a higher value for their sickness than older kids. There is no context to be provided for the #hotard instagram.
SheSaidDestroy ago
I don't know. I don't talk to people that way, I don't understand it. But in the back and forth, they are addressing each other. It looks like he gets called hotard, and then he says hotard, then specifies afterwards that it is @ the other person. Even if we agree that in general there is a lot of suspicious shit and a lot of smoke with these people, if someone were to hone in on that specific example, like tunnel-vision it, they could easily convince people that it's just back and forth and not directed at the baby, because that is what it looks like. So if someone is like "ASK HIM WHY HE CALLS BABIES HOTARDS" then the interviewer can cherry pick that, hone in on it, and be like, "See, they are calling each other hotards," and the whole investigation is successfully smeared.
I grew up with extremely manipulative, dysfunctional, abusive parents. Both of them. I know how the enemy thinks. I might not be the brightest person, and I might not be very useful in most regards. But damn do I know how the enemy thinks. I'm just trying to give an advanced warning.
RedGreenAlliance ago
all of these and much more covered in a tweet thread of the best 25 #AskAlefantis tweets here - https://twitter.com/MoMeetsAisha/status/809353798607048704
SheSaidDestroy ago
I'm confident that most of you got this, just nervous and encouraging to push the really vetted, solid stuff.
For what it's worth I'm speaking from the experience of someone who has lost in pizzagate arguments because I'm fairly run of the mill. Good intentions but not the smartest, sometimes too emotional and not objective enough. And I've seen lots of people out there like me.
I know many of you are top notch because I've watched you work here well before I finally joined. Please push the most solid stuff you have. There will be people like me, and also people pushing for debunked stuff on purpose, so it'll be coming from two fronts: accidentally by goodhearted sorts, and on purpose by people seeking to undermine.
RedGreenAlliance ago
Sentiment agreed. It comes down to this. You don't HAVE to believe its real, you don't HAVE to have a firm opinion when discussing with others. You simply have to present troubling data and ask what they make of it. And there is no shortage of material. Have a look at this for inspiration https://twitter.com/MoMeetsAisha/status/809353798607048704
Another tact is to talk about the reality of elite ped rings and use various known examples first. Then pose the question if this is known to be proven fact, and was covered up by complicit media and State actors - then we have to question why the media is trying to say PizzaGate is debunked and Fake News, without EVER presenting any of the troubling information which caused the phenomenon to take off. Its unprecedented cover up on a huge orchestrated campaign across the whole mainstream media. That to me is the biggest red flag, and if people can acknowledge THAT FACT before even getting into investigating PizzaGate, then you will have won half the battle in opening otherwise closed minds.
dickface8 ago
The insta avatar has to be one.
RedGreenAlliance ago
done - on here https://twitter.com/MoMeetsAisha/status/809353798607048704
SheSaidDestroy ago
I would say anything that has passed the shill test. I've had a few rough rounds with shills myself, but it helps to debunk and prune stuff where I wasn't objective enough to do it myself. If they can attack it, then generally they do, and aggressively. If it hasn't been challenged, then it's probably good to go.
reasonedandinformed ago
The shills often most aggressively attack the best evidence to try caution further investigation.