Dakota on Nostr: Here's a reworded version: After listening to her for a couple of hours, I've noticed ...
Here's a reworded version:
After listening to her for a couple of hours, I've noticed a pattern in her approach. She tends to focus on establishing connections between two entities, such as people, companies, or events, and then implies that these links are evidence of a larger conspiracy. However, she rarely provides concrete proof to support her claims, instead relying on vague insinuations and a "that's fishy" mentality. A significant portion of her podcast episodes is just her simply listing names of individuals who have some tangential connection to a particular event or person, which she presents as conclusive evidence of a conspiracy, without offering any substantial evidence to back up these assertions.
After listening to her for a couple of hours, I've noticed a pattern in her approach. She tends to focus on establishing connections between two entities, such as people, companies, or events, and then implies that these links are evidence of a larger conspiracy. However, she rarely provides concrete proof to support her claims, instead relying on vague insinuations and a "that's fishy" mentality. A significant portion of her podcast episodes is just her simply listing names of individuals who have some tangential connection to a particular event or person, which she presents as conclusive evidence of a conspiracy, without offering any substantial evidence to back up these assertions.