Step 1: Have THEM define what they believe "Pizzagate" is first. Asking someone if he/she believes in "pizzagate" is like asking someone if he/she believes in "science;" it's too broad of a topic and can be (and has been) corrupted by both sides, unintentionally and also with ill-intended purpose.
Step 2: If they define "pizzagate" as the NYTIMES or SNOPES does -- that it's a conspiracy theory the Clintons ran a sex-slave operation out of the back of a DC-based pizza joint -- then you calmly and clearly educate them that is a misappropriated belief assigned to an easy to remember hashtag. ADMIT that you do not believe that is true either.
Step 3: Re-define "pizzagate" as an investigation, not a fact. At this step, it's up to YOU to know the facts, separate out the fallacies and explain what you believe is real as part of the larger, wider investigation. I have found that asking them simple starter questions with Yes or No answers is best.
-
For example: Do you believe pedophilia is real? Do you believe that children are abducted and sold into slavery (work and sex)? Do you know how many children go missing every year? Do you believe that there are organized circles of people involved in human trafficking? Could and have law enforcement and government agencies helped in some way to allow these crime syndicates to continue? [Here is where you insert all the established reported facts of lawmakers, Congressmen and women and famous people charged with underage/solicitation of minors for sex and/or trafficking: Silsby, Hastert, Foley, Epstein, Weiner, Shortey and Sandusky to name a few...]
Once you have laid the ground work of your beliefs and clearly isolated the FACTS from the fiction -- that in just 2016, the FBI reported that there were 465,000 reports of missing children in the United States alone, and that 1 in 6 are believed victims of child sex trafficking -- and that you believe high-ranking and public officials (including national and international governments) have played a serious role in allowing it, funding it and/or both -- you can have an intellectual, un-biased conversation about the issue.
I know the trolls will be the first to comment, and judge, and twist this into something it is not...Ignore them. Anyone who denies the answers to the questions stated above is either uneducated, ill-informed or paid to do so.
Good luck.
--77
view the rest of the comments →
waxdino ago
Thanks for posting this.
Not to make it political, but the fact is a good many people not willing to accept evidence that "pizzagate" needs investigating are Hillary drones. A big first step to redpilling them is to get them to accept that Clinton is shady. So having a succinct argument, pointing out that her email server was more than a "nothingburger" and not ok, and there's a mountain of evidence of pay-to-play, is useful.
We all know the CIA has trafficked drugs. Is it that great a leap to think the government hasn't dealt in human trafficking? And that slimy politicians wouldn't be getting their grubby little hands on some of the money?
HugoWeaving ago
As a recovering Democrat, I find leaving politics out of the conversation is the only way to make sense of this. That said, of course, I believe Clinton and her associates are very heavily involved in criminal activities, up to and likely including human trafficking in some form. At what level is yet to be determined.
You are correct, historical evidence suggests that government agencies have in the past trafficked drugs, weapons and money, and I would agree it isn't a far leap to traffic human flesh...
The fact of the matter is, however, that "pizzagate" -- ie child exploitation -- has occurred under a lot of different Presidents, on both sides.
waxdino ago
No, the political one isn't an approach for everyone. It's an idea for those people we all know that would immediately jump to "this is another example of Hillary being demonized boo hoo." You may need to take a slow approach that gently reminds them that the many examples of government corruption we all know of includes their dear leaders.
I think most of us here know Democrat and Republican are two sides of the same coin. But if you are dealing with someone that thinks this is still "alt-right trumpers" going after Hillary, the discussion may need to get a little political. I supported neither Trump nor Clinton, but am saying from experience that I've had this discussion with a "she's my President" tard (dear friend, but, yeah), and step one was, can you grasp Clinton is shady? They'll fall back on what they say when backed in a corner- "maybe a little but what politician isn't?" Next step: becoming aware of sweeping government corruption.
HugoWeaving ago
I agree, sadly. The trouble is the opposition has done a marvelous job at subconscious suggestion -- as in, if you're against HER, you're for HIM, etc. Their system shuts down immediately.