Debunking a Debunker article (www.technologyreview.com)
posted ago by Enthymeme ago by Enthymeme +8 / -0
Comments (3)
sorted by:
2
Badstate 2 points ago +2 / -0
  1. Mischaracterize the theory.
  2. Debunk the mischaracterized theory.
  3. Claim original theory has been debunked.
1
Enthymeme [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

A brief process of it...thanks

1
Enthymeme [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pull Quote: On May 4, a slick, 26-minute video was released, alleging that the coronavirus was actually a laboratory-manipulated virus deployed to wreak havoc so that a resulting vaccine could be used for profit. None of that was true, and Plandemic’s claims were thoroughly, repeatedly debunked.

Ever notice that using the word "debunked" is presented as "Truth", although there are seldom if ever, links provided as evidence to support the "debunker."

This article from MIT Technology Review includes one Harvard social scientist and several Reddit mods of r/ChangeMyView as the author's sources.

Welded with Speaker Pelosi's video describing the "The Wrap-Up Smear" https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4754024/user-clip-nancy-pelosi-wrap-up-smear, would this take the burden off of debunkers and place it squarely on conspiracy theorists?