I was just yesterday arguing with a colleague about the Nigerian Christian killings, and he completely denied it happening because the news comes from Breitbart, Neonnettle, etc., and he won't accept anything other than news straight from Nigeria or from 'approved' MSM media outlets. I eventually sent him an article in The Telegraph from 2018 pointing out the bloodshed going on between the two religions in Nigeria, so I managed to talk him into understanding that there was undoubtedly conflict in the area, but he refuses to believe, and is adamant that the '120 in the last 3 weeks' story didn't happen simply because of the source.
This question obviously extends to any other news actually, because I've come across this issue a lot when arguing with these people, where they simply won't accept something because of the source. Is there a way to fight this, or should I just hope and wait for the truth to come out in the MSM?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Wobblegong ago (edited ago)
Find examples of the news lying and changing the story show them that evidence to first establish that it’s possible. Then discuss things as a hypothetical such as the darpa life log and Facebook connection and why so many darpa employees work there. Go to insidercow.com show them where google and Facebook are dumping stock and the twitter suppression against POTUS. Some people just don’t want to believe they’ve been lied to and others are scared to death to admit they were wrong. I was wrong, I liked Bernie until he caved to the Dems and supported Hillary.
Edit: Use the Socratic method like Q by asking them questions so that they connect the dots and aren’t being told. This is just information that has helped me. Good luck.