How do u sound legit to skeptics of conspiracy
- Thread starter jayman96
- Start date
-
Hey Guest !
Welcome to the THC+ Forums. To participate you need to be, or at some point have been, a THC+ Member. If that's you, your THC+ Username is already here, but you need to establish a separate password for the forums, since access doesn't rely on your THC+ account being active. Just click the "Forgot Password" link and follow the prompts. Thanks and enjoy!
Frankly there is little you can do when discussing such things one on one as the other person will find it much easier to simply dismiss you as a loon than take you seriously and do a lot of research on the subject with only the prospect of having to reformulate their entire worldview on the back end. Most people would rather die than face that level of uncertainty.
Additionally most people simply defer to "experts" and rest easy knowing that they don't have to think about it - so absent a direct contradictory experience which completely shatters the "experts" argument they will simply ignore anything you have to say or any research you can show as "people smarter than us" already have it figured out so you must be missing something that neither of us can even think of. All of this is ingrained in western culture in order to stifle the value of reasonable debate and allow institutional rhetoric to win the day. It makes any such individual efforts extremely difficult and any concessions hard won.
I am sure most people have heard the saying never discuss politics or religion in mixed company, it is precisely because of the cultural mechanisms make any discussion intractable and frustrating for all involved. This often results in flaring tempers and bruised egos, at which point any rational discussion is moot.
In order to be able to discuss such things you will have to recognize that the other person is disillusioned with some portion of the official narrative related to the subject and use that to widen their perspective. Even then any progress will still be hard fought.
Additionally most people simply defer to "experts" and rest easy knowing that they don't have to think about it - so absent a direct contradictory experience which completely shatters the "experts" argument they will simply ignore anything you have to say or any research you can show as "people smarter than us" already have it figured out so you must be missing something that neither of us can even think of. All of this is ingrained in western culture in order to stifle the value of reasonable debate and allow institutional rhetoric to win the day. It makes any such individual efforts extremely difficult and any concessions hard won.
I am sure most people have heard the saying never discuss politics or religion in mixed company, it is precisely because of the cultural mechanisms make any discussion intractable and frustrating for all involved. This often results in flaring tempers and bruised egos, at which point any rational discussion is moot.
In order to be able to discuss such things you will have to recognize that the other person is disillusioned with some portion of the official narrative related to the subject and use that to widen their perspective. Even then any progress will still be hard fought.
Last edited:
If you proselyties to them it could be taken as projecting to get confirmation of your own inner sense of self and truth.
I have to pull back, if they ask specifically give them some crumbs to follow not force the whole loaf down their throat
I always liked this qoute
"when we lack an internal sense of truth, meaning, or value, we will seek after external models to live by. Once we have found models that suit us, we then impose them upon our own expression and behaviors. After that, we “naturally” seek to impose them on others as well–for “their own good” of course, but really for our own safety and comfort and to ensure that those adopted values–our crucial fictions–are never questioned. To silence all voices of dissent, both inner and outer, and avoid all “contrapuntal conflict.”
https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/a-critical-divide-part-three-of-four-lend-me-your-eyes/
I have to pull back, if they ask specifically give them some crumbs to follow not force the whole loaf down their throat
I always liked this qoute
"when we lack an internal sense of truth, meaning, or value, we will seek after external models to live by. Once we have found models that suit us, we then impose them upon our own expression and behaviors. After that, we “naturally” seek to impose them on others as well–for “their own good” of course, but really for our own safety and comfort and to ensure that those adopted values–our crucial fictions–are never questioned. To silence all voices of dissent, both inner and outer, and avoid all “contrapuntal conflict.”
https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/a-critical-divide-part-three-of-four-lend-me-your-eyes/
But... hollow earth theory is BS !!! Just like "flat earth".
Planets can have huge hollow volumes, this is fact in our, at least.
But a "central sun" surrounded by a "shell" is another "psy op" do drag naive people to the swamp of "never land".
If one really have hope to "red pill" a slipping zombie a better subject if the Apollo Project to the Moon and how even the official photos violate the laws of optics.
Obs.: (shamangineer) You can not use in the same phase the name Wallace Thorhill and the factuality of the so called 'black holes'. He enphatically disagree about the existence of such Mathematical aberrations !
Planets can have huge hollow volumes, this is fact in our, at least.
But a "central sun" surrounded by a "shell" is another "psy op" do drag naive people to the swamp of "never land".
If one really have hope to "red pill" a slipping zombie a better subject if the Apollo Project to the Moon and how even the official photos violate the laws of optics.
Obs.: (shamangineer) You can not use in the same phase the name Wallace Thorhill and the factuality of the so called 'black holes'. He enphatically disagree about the existence of such Mathematical aberrations !
I don't know what you think I said, but in the past I have characterized black holes as mathematical mistakes.
If one listen your (maybe) first interview for THC, file
THC_Shamangineer_Plus.mp3 (MD5SUM d2f4058859b445cd7633ebee8f4c8e15)
it is possible to understand, from your words, that WT subscribe to the BS about black holes...
Or, it could be my lack of English skills - again ;-)
THC_Shamangineer_Plus.mp3 (MD5SUM d2f4058859b445cd7633ebee8f4c8e15)
it is possible to understand, from your words, that WT subscribe to the BS about black holes...
Or, it could be my lack of English skills - again ;-)
Its all about approach in my opinion. For example, going around telling people Obama is a reptilian is pointless, no ones gonna believe you except for the schotzophrenic homeless guy (I don't personally believe that theory, but I may find information in the future that will show me Im wrong.)
The way I go about it is by dealing with the lowest common denominator. That being that the government, business, and media is corrupt and has been shown to repeatedly lie to us and use as guinea pigs for various ideological and physical experiments. Most people, particularly if you're calm and come with facts, can agree with this.
From there you can introduce more info. Its reallly about listening to people and hearing how they see the world. Theres many ways you can introduce new concepts to someone that they will be open to learning more about.
The way I go about it is by dealing with the lowest common denominator. That being that the government, business, and media is corrupt and has been shown to repeatedly lie to us and use as guinea pigs for various ideological and physical experiments. Most people, particularly if you're calm and come with facts, can agree with this.
From there you can introduce more info. Its reallly about listening to people and hearing how they see the world. Theres many ways you can introduce new concepts to someone that they will be open to learning more about.
There are some who are completely unreceptive no matter the amount of information, evidence, ect. These tend to be people who are struggling in one way or another with the world as it currently exists and have developed a limited worldview to cope with overwhelming, poorly understood, and hostile conditions in order to make it comprehensible. It would take a very overt anomaly that could not be ignored to cause them to question their worldview. There are others whose work are tied to a particular worldview which can be extremely difficult to sway as well.
You can lead a man to ideas, but you can't make him think. Many highly credentialed people have been telling the world for years, but most people are too comfortable in the consensus reality to really look at the facts in front of them. For a fuller understanding of the phenomenon have a look at Wilhelm Reich's essay "The Emotional Plague"
If you really want to try to move people from their stupor, try showing them something, rather than just telling them.
Pull out your iPhone and check out Apple's disclaimer under > Settings. General. About. Legal. RF Exposure.
They literally tell you flat out it's how dangerous it is to use their devices.
If you really want to try to move people from their stupor, try showing them something, rather than just telling them.
Pull out your iPhone and check out Apple's disclaimer under > Settings. General. About. Legal. RF Exposure.
They literally tell you flat out it's how dangerous it is to use their devices.