Why would you even include the “how we know this” slide if that’s what it looks like? Even if we took them 100% at their word about all that “evidence,” what they’re describing in no way follows from the evidence presented. It would have been more convincing if they just hadn’t included any “evidence” at all.
Because the average person doesn’t know what any of that means. It’s just something for them nod at.
I remember once around the 2016 era I was reading an article where they were accusing Russia of hacking election offices and it turns out that they were just being port scanned like every other IP is 24/7. But people bought right into that narrative hook, line, and sinker. I had so many arguments with libs in my life about that shit. And I’m someone that can point to my own work being on wikipedia. But my word meant nothing because I’m just some nerd they know, and the news is an authority figure in their lives. The Consent do be manufactured.
Why would you even include the “how we know this” slide if that’s what it looks like? Even if we took them 100% at their word about all that “evidence,” what they’re describing in no way follows from the evidence presented. It would have been more convincing if they just hadn’t included any “evidence” at all.
Because the average person doesn’t know what any of that means. It’s just something for them nod at.
I remember once around the 2016 era I was reading an article where they were accusing Russia of hacking election offices and it turns out that they were just being port scanned like every other IP is 24/7. But people bought right into that narrative hook, line, and sinker. I had so many arguments with libs in my life about that shit. And I’m someone that can point to my own work being on wikipedia. But my word meant nothing because I’m just some nerd they know, and the news is an authority figure in their lives. The Consent do be manufactured.