[nl]

The best example is the Sandy Hook conspiracy. I have no stake in this game, but I'm as interested as anybody to hear both sides and it turns out that CNN will not ever provide the other side of the story while infowars will. It's that easy: Infowars does its actual journalistic job and questions everything.

Some stories just don't have two sides.

Infowars doesn't do a "journalistic job". What they do is take a story, work out what their world view says ("Guns make people safer and the government is bad" in this case I think?) and then finds some theory - any theory - to back their view and calls it the other side of the story.

[tomjen3]

As a minimum, you can look into why people believe things you consider false. Then you can investigate those.

Or you could just ignore them, then they will ignore you and probably our society will be worse off.

[nl]

Sure. I understand completely why people believe in theories like this. The paper linked from the article has a good explanation.

I don't know a useful way to talk about though. Evidence doesn't seem the best approach because there is always some theory why their evidence is better.