This especially: "stick to reading meta-analysis."
Big challenge there is getting folks to read lengthy articles or watch long interviews especially reading or watching something that might challenge their presuppositions.
I'm finding that quite a few of the 'Covid skeptics', especially the ones that have "made a name for themsleves", are trapped in some version of the Covid story and don't seem to want to examine any evidence that calls into question the fundamentals of what they have been writing or conjecturing about.
Why do they feel so threatened by others simply asking them to look further or in different places?
For example, most of the more notable 'Covid skeptics' are of the mind that there was a pandemic. They may diverge on views of this and how it "should have been handled" but on the fundamental assumption they are in agreement.
Someone like Denis Rancourt or Katherin Austin Fitts comes along and wipes out the entire pandemic narrative and does so with voluminous evidence and impeccable historical arguments.
Those who are establishing their "voice" in the world of "Covid dissenters" never hold discussions with people like this and in fact when challenged to examine evidence and context that clearly illustrates that that fundamental assumption they hold is demonstrably false they do all they can to push that discussion aside or react in a hostile manner.
Things I do with news: what agenda does the 'fact' they are reporting serve. Who benefits from 'that viewpoint'. More recent thing: who can you not criticize? then that person is in service to who run the world. What can you not criticize? then that object is a tool for those who run the world. who gets away with 'crimes', then they are aligned with who runs the world. who does enormous word dancing in order to normalize the ridiculous? then they are a bought pawn.
What 'must you agree with' to be 'popular' and 'accepted' by the useful idiots? Then that is the dance you must ridicule, ignore and yawn at. and as you go into their 'matrix', remind yourself you're going in and look at it from that perspective. you literally just pick up the webs and blow them into ether.
Good advice and the memes ring true
This especially: "stick to reading meta-analysis."
Big challenge there is getting folks to read lengthy articles or watch long interviews especially reading or watching something that might challenge their presuppositions.
I'm finding that quite a few of the 'Covid skeptics', especially the ones that have "made a name for themsleves", are trapped in some version of the Covid story and don't seem to want to examine any evidence that calls into question the fundamentals of what they have been writing or conjecturing about.
Why do they feel so threatened by others simply asking them to look further or in different places?
For example, most of the more notable 'Covid skeptics' are of the mind that there was a pandemic. They may diverge on views of this and how it "should have been handled" but on the fundamental assumption they are in agreement.
Someone like Denis Rancourt or Katherin Austin Fitts comes along and wipes out the entire pandemic narrative and does so with voluminous evidence and impeccable historical arguments.
Those who are establishing their "voice" in the world of "Covid dissenters" never hold discussions with people like this and in fact when challenged to examine evidence and context that clearly illustrates that that fundamental assumption they hold is demonstrably false they do all they can to push that discussion aside or react in a hostile manner.
I'm seeing this quite a bit these days.
I’m dying for a homeschool curriculum around this kind of stuff.
Things I do with news: what agenda does the 'fact' they are reporting serve. Who benefits from 'that viewpoint'. More recent thing: who can you not criticize? then that person is in service to who run the world. What can you not criticize? then that object is a tool for those who run the world. who gets away with 'crimes', then they are aligned with who runs the world. who does enormous word dancing in order to normalize the ridiculous? then they are a bought pawn.
What 'must you agree with' to be 'popular' and 'accepted' by the useful idiots? Then that is the dance you must ridicule, ignore and yawn at. and as you go into their 'matrix', remind yourself you're going in and look at it from that perspective. you literally just pick up the webs and blow them into ether.
Curriculum is the wrong word.