Interesting juxtaposition to drop 4735.
QAnon displayed and discussed by Media outlets, WW.
4735 implies, don’t reference QAnon when red-pilling.
It may not help, given the current state of negative news?
A difference to see: Crumb in drop 4735 was composed by an Anon and re-posted by Q on the next bread.
I’m not certain we can understand that to be an endorsement to the strategy but, maybe, a different path to red-pilling the /totally/ uninitiated?
So, no, I’m not going to down-play the role of QAnon in the comms strategy but maybe bring QAnon into the conversation strategically.
YMMV
Oh, and I think the best response to someone that might reference “wild-eyed conspiracy theories” involving pedophiles would be to simply ask,
“Do you believe it is WRONG to expose such if it actually exists...in any form?” (segue to “Cuties”?)
Alternately, one could ask whether they think it doesn’t exist at all, in any form.
I am loathe to use the “denier” tactic simply because it is a commie/lib standard argument.