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 →
[–] JustAnotherUser [S] ago
Yeah I think appealing to common sense is a good point. I'm very aware of the implications behind sending a Breitbart article someone, which makes me annoyed that sometimes, this story in particular, they're the only 'big' alternative right-wing websites reporting it. Thankfully another Anon has linked a couple other seemingly credible sources from Nigeria, so that helps my case a little, but yeah I'm frustrated by the divide between what I know to be true and what I can prove.
I've made it this far though, just recently I've felt more of an urge to try and redpill a few people so that they don't freak out too much with the news from potential upcoming events.