How to Shut Up a "Skeptic "
If a "skeptic" is getting uppity, you can easily shut them up or make them look foolish.
Pseudo Skeptics are pseudo-intellectuals devoted to defending the official narrative; they hide behind a thin veneer of logic, reason, and science - the context in which they use the term “science” makes it very clear that they believe that science is a set of rigid belief systems instead of a method of discovery (e.g "anti-vaxxers are anti-science”) - they feign intellectual impartiality that quickly breaks down when confronted with any evidence that contradicts the ON.
Their worldview maintains that 100% of the ON must be correct 100% of the time; they are compelled to discredit any witness, expert, or evidence that contradicts it.
“Skeptics” only value logic and critical thinking when defending a neutral topic or established dogmas, when confronted with the absurdity of magic passports logic and critical thinking disappear - “why of course it’s possible for passports to survive a blazing inferno that melted weakened structural steel!”
Shut them up and shut them down by making these statements:
Your job is to defend the official narrative.
This is effective because most pseudo-skeptics are unaware that the goal of their “skepticism” is to defend the ON, this is most likely the first time they heard it because the vast majority live in their little spaghetti bubble - they actually see themselves as perfectly objective empiricists who think critically at all times and this view is rarely challenged.
Be warned: if you are on a platform that they control this will get you banned because of the emotional pain you caused them.
They may say the official narrative is usually right and they may be correct, but “skeptics” defend 100% of the ON 100% of the time. Remind them.
You believe that a fire made a building explode.
They either have to:
A. Not Respond
B. Provide ludicrous reasons why fire and/or the impact of a plane can pulverize concrete and steel and eject them.
C. Deny that concrete and steel were pulverized and ejected or deny that there was an explosion.
D. Change the subject or distract you with mathematical formulas neither one of you understand.
If A happens it’s a win in most cases, the neutral observer knows they didn’t respond because they couldn't possibly defend it.
If they pull B or C it’s another win; everyone knows there is no physical reason whatsoever why the impact of a plane or a fire would destroy a building in mid-air. It's their word versus a video/picture. If the platform you’re both on allows it, show a link to the video or a picture.
If they go to D point out that math doesn't change physics and bring the subject back to the physical impossibilities of the ON.
The “skeptic” may pull a conspiracy strawman: “How did they wire the building? How did they plant explosives in the building without anyone seeing?”
Answer: “The improbability of one thing does not change the impossibility of another. “
Ask them to specifically explain how a fire or the impact of a plane could generate the kinetic energy to pulverize concrete and steel then eject them all over Manhattan. No amount of 10-dollar words, fancy syntax, or appeals to authority will help them if you maintain frame; the “skeptic” may be more educated or more intelligent than you but they subscribe to an irrational worldview that compels them to defend a physical impossibility; if you can’t shut them up you can make fools out of them.
If the skepti-bunkie is arrogant enough to gaslight, call them out on it.
